browser_wait

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavior: waits for an element/text, uses a timeout with a default of 10 seconds, and 'Returns error if element doesn't appear.' It also discloses the constraint 'Provide EITHER selector OR text (not both).' It does not mention what happens on success (return value), but an output schema exists, so that is not required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, prerequisite, usage context, and a clearly formatted argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the examples for selector and text are helpful. It is appropriately sized for a tool with five parameters and is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential context: when to use it, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. The missing `tab_id` parameter and the lack of clarification on what 'appear' means (e.g., visible vs. present in DOM) are minor gaps. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required, and the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in most dynamic-content scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains four of five parameters: selector, text, timeout, and session_name, with examples and constraints. However, it omits the `tab_id` parameter that is present in the schema. This is a notable gap, but the explanation given for the other parameters is detailed and actionable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Wait for a DOM element or text to appear on the page.' It uses a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('DOM element or text'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as a synchronization step after navigation/clicking (e.g., 'Use this AFTER browser_go or browser_click').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use for SPAs, AJAX, and dynamic content' and 'when the page loads content asynchronously.' It also states a prerequisite (browser_open and browser_go must have been called first). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it lacks the full when/when-not/alternatives structure for a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.