browser_wait_for

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds the core condition semantics. However, it does not disclose what happens if the target text never appears, whether the wait can time out, or whether text, textGone, and time are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It communicates the essential behavior immediately and is easy for an agent 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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers its parameters, but the description leaves important edge cases unaddressed: all parameters are optional, and the description does not clarify what happens when no arguments are provided or when multiple arguments are given. There is also no output schema, so the return behavior is unknown, though this is less critical for a wait 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?

All three parameters are already described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps text to appearing, textGone to disappearing, and time to elapsed seconds, but it does not add details about parameter combinations, precedence, or valid ranges.

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 states a concrete action—waiting—and defines three target conditions: text appearing, text disappearing, or a specified time passing. This is enough to tell the tool apart from the sibling browser tools, none of which are wait operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of typical scenarios such as waiting after navigation or before taking a snapshot. The intended usage is left entirely to inference from the name and description.

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