browser_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool waits for conditions and returns a fresh snapshot, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about timeouts and error handling.

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, using bullet points to list conditions. The main action is stated upfront. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 complexity of multiple condition types and the absence of parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all conditions and the timeout parameter. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable.

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?

The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does so effectively by labeling each condition (text, text_gone, selector, url, network_idle, time) and explaining the timeout parameter. This provides significant value beyond the raw 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 a condition and returns a fresh snapshot. The verb 'wait' and the resource 'browser' are specific, and the description distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_navigate by focusing on waiting for conditions.

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 explicitly says 'Pass exactly one condition' and lists each condition with explanations. While it does not explicitly compare to sibling wait tools like browser_wait_for_download, the conditions are clearly enumerated, providing good context for usage.

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