browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context about what triggers the wait (text appearance/disappearance or time), which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it doesn't specify timeout behavior, error conditions, or what happens if multiple conditions are specified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality with zero wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on output (no output schema), error handling, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., use after browser_navigate). Given the complexity is moderate, it meets minimum viability but could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value by summarizing the parameters ('text to appear or disappear or a specified time'), but doesn't provide additional semantics like parameter interactions, default behaviors, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 with specific verbs ('wait for text to appear or disappear or a specified time to pass'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_click or browser_type by focusing on waiting rather than performing actions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's for browser automation context, though sibling tools provide that context.

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 scenarios (waiting for text changes or timeouts) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. No sibling tools offer similar waiting functionality, so differentiation isn't needed, but it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session) or typical use cases.

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