browser_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'browser wait' reveals nothing about what happens during the wait, such as timeout behavior, effect on browser state, or whether it blocks further actions—critical gaps for a no-side-effect tool.

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?

While extremely concise at two words, the description is under-specified and not compactly informative. It repeats the name without adding value, violating the principle that every sentence should earn its place.

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 has no parameters or output schema, the description should at minimum explain what 'wait' means semantically (e.g., waiting for page stability, a timer, or a condition). It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to know appropriate usage, making it incomplete.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist, but it also fails to clarify what the tool accomplishes without parameters. Meets minimum viability for this dimension.

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 'browser wait' is a tautology that simply repeats the tool name without specifying what action is performed (e.g., waiting for page load, timeout, or condition). It fails to state the verb or resource, distinguishing it poorly from siblings like 'browser_wait_for'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool. Among sibling browser tools, there is 'browser_wait_for' which likely has a more specific purpose, but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection.

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