Wait for text, a CSS selector to appear or disappear, or a URL substring before continuing; with no condition, wait for the page to finish loading and settle.
Wait until text appears, a CSS selector is visible, a selector is gone, or the URL contains a string. With no condition, waits for the page to finish loading and settle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gone | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| timeout | No | milliseconds | |
| selector | No | ||
| urlContains | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: with no condition it waits for load-and-settle. However it omits the timeout default, what happens when the timeout elapses (error vs. silent return), and whether conditions are mutually exclusive or combined.
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 tight sentences with the supported conditions front-loaded and the default behavior appended. No redundant or wasted phrasing.
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 five-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers condition semantics but leaves notable gaps: timeout default and unit behavior per condition, failure mode on timeout, and return value after waiting.
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 20% (timeout is the sole documented property), yet the description semantically maps four of the five parameters: text, selector, gone, and urlContains. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not state precedence or exclusivity among conditions.
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 names a specific verb (wait) and enumerates the four condition types it supports (text, selector visible, selector gone, URL contains), plus the no-condition default. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling browser_wait_human, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
It implies when the tool is useful by listing the conditions and stating the no-condition fallback ('waits for the page to finish loading and settle'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over browser_wait_human or how it relates to browser_read/browser_act sequencing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.