browser_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions wait conditions but omits critical details such as timeout behavior, error handling, return value, or whether it blocks. The description is minimal and leaves out what happens when the condition is not met.

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 that conveys the essential purpose without waste. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not address what the tool returns (if anything), how it handles timeouts, or whether it performs any side effects. For a wait tool, timeout behavior is a key context that is missing, making the description insufficient for reliable use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'selector', 'text', and 'short delay,' which loosely maps to the parameters, but it does not clarify the role of timeoutMs (e.g., whether it is the max wait time or the delay itself) or how parameters interact. This ambiguity fails to adequately explain the parameters.

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: 'Wait for a selector to become visible, for text to appear, or for a short delay.' It uses a specific verb ('Wait') and resource (browser state), distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_navigate.

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: waiting for UI conditions before interacting. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It is clear enough for basic use but lacks explicit guidance.

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