browser_wait_for_timeout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Wait a fixed amount of time,' which is minimal. It doesn't disclose that the wait is blocking (preventing other operations), whether the wait is exact or subject to timing variations, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that pauses execution.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Wait a fixed amount of time') and then adds a helpful parenthetical example. It could be slightly more descriptive about behavior, but it is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nesting), the description is somewhat minimal. However, the presence of an output schema (not detailed) and the clear parameter description help. But for a tool that causes a time delay, an agent would benefit from knowing that the wait is synchronous and potentially affects the current page state. Missing behavioral context lowers the score.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'ms' is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any nuance beyond what the schema provides (e.g., that it's a wait duration). The description does mention 'fixed amount,' which reinforces the parameter's meaning, but adds little extra value.

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 states the tool waits a fixed amount of time, with a clear verb ('wait') and resource. It includes examples of use cases (page sleeps/progress bars), which adds clarity. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the siblings are mostly navigation/interaction tools, not other wait tools.

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 use cases ('page sleeps/progress bars') which imply when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (like browser_wait_for_text) suggests an alternative wait mechanism, though the description doesn't mention it directly.

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