Browser Wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains what is waited for, but not how the wait behaves: whether conditions are combined as AND or OR, what happens on timeout, whether it polls, or whether it errors when the condition is not met. The phrase 'and/or' is also ambiguous.

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 compact sentence with the core verb and target front-loaded. It avoids fluff, though the ambiguous 'and/or' slightly detracts from clarity.

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 six parameters, zero annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits critical operational details such as timeout behavior, how multiple conditions interact, and the role of device/session parameters, leaving agents to guess.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for text, selector, and url_contains, but it does not explain the semantics of device, session, or timeout, all of which remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 action ('Wait until') and the target resource ('the page'), and enumerates specific conditions (text, selector, URL fragment, finished loading). It is not a tautology and gives a concrete sense of the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use browser_wait versus alternatives like wait_for or browser_read. The intended use is only implied through the condition list, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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