browser.wait_for_selector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool blocks until the condition is met or times out, which is key. However, it does not explain what 'raises' means (error type?), whether it returns a value (e.g., element handle), or any side effects. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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 two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies the termination condition. Every word contributes meaning. It is ideally sized for quick understanding.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete for a simple wait operation. It covers the basic wait-and-return behavior but lacks details on error handling, return value, and parameter constraints. An agent could likely use it correctly but might miss edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value: only the 'state' parameter is elaborated with the list of states, which is already in the enum. The 'session_id', 'selector', and 'timeout_ms' parameters receive no extra meaning. The description does not explain that the timeout is in milliseconds or the selector's format.

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 action ('Wait for'), the resource ('CSS selector'), and the specific states ('visible, hidden, attached, detached'). It also explains the outcome ('Returns when the condition is met or raises on timeout'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like browser.find_elements or browser.readiness_check.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must be active), warning against overuse, or when to prefer other waiting mechanisms. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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