browser_wait_for

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the mutual-exclusion rule (exactly one condition), which the schema does not enforce, but it omits critical behavior: what happens on timeout (error vs silent return), whether the call blocks until the condition resolves, and what the result indicates. For a waiting tool these are the traits an agent most needs.

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?

Two short sentences, condition types front-loaded, constraint second. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify timeout/failure semantics and the shape of the result. It covers the input conditions well but leaves the agent guessing about what a successful or timed-out wait returns, which is a meaningful gap for a blocking operation.

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 coverage is only 29%, and the description compensates by mapping meaning onto the four undocumented parameters: 'text' (appear), 'textGone' (disappear), 'selector' (CSS match), and 'time' (fixed seconds). The remaining three (tabId, backend, timeoutMs) are documented in the schema itself, so the combined picture is reasonably complete.

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?

States a specific verb (wait) and enumerates the four condition types it accepts (text appear, text disappear, CSS selector, fixed seconds). This clearly separates it from siblings like browser_find or browser_get_text, which act immediately rather than waiting, though the description does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 clause 'Provide exactly one condition' gives an important usage constraint, implying this is a blocking step used after navigation or an action. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g. browser_find / browser_snapshot) and no when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer the sequencing.

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