browser_wait_for

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses matching semantics (case-insensitive substring), conditional logic (state applies only with ref), the requirement of at least one condition, and implies a polling/wait behavior. However, it does not state blocking behavior, timeout default handling, or what happens on timeout failure.

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?

Front-loads the core action and required condition, then adds matching semantics. Four sentences, all relevant, no filler. Could be slightly more compact but the structure is clear and hierarchical.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But with 0% schema coverage and 6 parameters, the description leaves timeout_ms, session_id, and ref state behavior insufficiently documented for an agent to call parameters correctly without additional inference.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate fully for parameter documentation but fails to explain most parameters. It adds meaning to text, url, ref, and state but ignores session_id and timeout_ms entirely, leaving 2 of 6 parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 until) and the condition types (text/url/ref-state). Distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_screenshot or browser_click_ref by clearly being the synchronization/polling tool.

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?

Says 'At least one condition is required' which establishes the minimum usage, but does not state when to use this tool over alternatives like browser_status or browser_find_text. No explicit exclusions or comparative routing guidance.

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