browser_wait

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It describes the wait condition (no DOM mutations and network idle) and the return information (whether settled and mutation count). It does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, but the behavior is well covered.

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 very concise and well-structured, starting with a clear one-line purpose, followed by usage guidance, and then an Args list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple wait tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, parameter details, and what it returns. It is complete without being verbose.

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%, but the description adds meaning by documenting both parameters in an Args block: page_id as 'Target page ID' and timeout_ms with default 5000. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's type and title alone.

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 purpose: 'Wait for the page to settle (no DOM mutations + network idle).' This provides a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('page'), and defines the settling condition. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform actions like clicking or navigating.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use after actions that trigger dynamic content loading.' This helps the agent decide when to invoke it. It also mentions the return values, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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