browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the three waiting modes (appear, disappear, time), which are the core behavioral traits. It does not mention timeout behavior or error handling, but with annotations this is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without any filler. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple, has no output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description covers the main usage modes. However, it does not specify default timeout behavior or what happens if the wait condition is not met, which could be useful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a 'time' parameter.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the schema by clearly mapping 'text' to appearance, 'textGone' to disappearance, and 'time' to a duration, adding semantic context beyond the raw schema properties.

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 a specific action ('Wait') and the target resources (text to appear, disappear, or a time to pass). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like browser_find or browser_evaluate by focusing solely on waiting behavior.

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 when you need to wait for a condition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or common scenarios. No exclusions are provided, so it is adequate but not explicit.

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