browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond this, such as the waiting mechanism or timeout behavior, but does not contradict annotations. Some extra context is provided by mentioning the three wait modes.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is concise with no wasted words.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios. However, it does not explain behavior when no parameters are provided or timeout handling, leaving minor gaps.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description reinforces the relationship between text (appear) and textGone (disappear) and time, but it does not explain interaction rules (e.g., whether multiple can be used together). This adds marginal value over the schema.

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 waits for text to appear or disappear or for a specified time to pass. This is a specific action on a resource (browser state) and distinguishes it from siblings like browser_wait_for_network_idle by focusing on text and time.

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 implies usage for waiting on UI conditions but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as browser_wait_for_network_idle. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, making the guidance purely implied.

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