browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add the three wait modes (appear, disappear, time), but it omits important details like what happens on timeout, behavior when no parameters are provided, or whether multiple conditions can be combined.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and covers all core functionality without any fluff. Every word contributes to meaning.

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?

With all parameters optional and no output schema, the description leaves ambiguity about calling with no arguments or with conflicting conditions (e.g., text and textGone together). It does not clarify timeout behavior or default waiting time, making it adequate but not complete.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description essentially restates the same information without adding new meaning, such as parameter precedence or interactions. It earns the baseline 3 for schema coverage but adds no extra depth.

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 purpose: waiting for text to appear, disappear, or a time to pass. It uses a specific verb ('Wait') and describes the three distinct conditions, distinguishing it from sibling browser action tools like click or navigate.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you need to wait for a page state or a fixed delay. There are no explicit exclusions or mentions of alternatives, but no sibling tool provides waiting functionality, so the usage context is clear enough.

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