browser_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool waits for a selector state or a fixed delay, which is a good start. However, it does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether the tool polls or blocks, or what the return value indicates. The presence of an output schema mitigates some return-value ambiguity, but side effects and error behavior remain unclear.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Wait...'), and every word adds value. It avoids unnecessary detail while covering the core functionality and a key use case.

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 has three optional parameters, no enums, and an output schema, but the description omits critical details like the accepted values for 'state' (only 'visible' is defaulted, implying others exist) and the meaning of a null selector. For a browser automation tool, more precision is needed to ensure correct invocation, especially without annotations to clarify behavior.

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 for parameter meaning. It implies 'selector' and 'state' are used together, and 'timeout_ms' is used for the fixed delay, but it never explicitly explains the valid values for 'state' or how a null selector triggers the delay. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably construct calls without additional inference.

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's specific verb and resource: 'Wait for selector state or a fixed delay on the active page.' This accurately describes the two modes of operation and distinguishes it from sibling browser interaction tools like browser_click or browser_type, which perform actions rather than waiting.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this for SPA flows where UI updates are asynchronous.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, which prevents a score of 5.

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