browser_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what conditions are waited for but omits critical details such as what happens on timeout (e.g., error thrown), default timeout behavior, or whether the tool returns a value. This leaves the agent uncertain about failure modes.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. However, it is terse to the point of omitting important details, so it loses a point for sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate by explaining behavior, parameters, and results. It only covers basic purpose, leaving the agent without enough information to predict outcomes or handle errors, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It loosely maps selector to visibility, text to appearance, and timeoutMs to 'short delay', but it does not explain how these parameters interact, which are mutually exclusive, or the format of selector/text. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Wait' with clear resources: selector visibility, text appearance, and short delay. It distinguishes itself from sibling browser actions like click, hover, and navigate, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 for synchronizing or delaying actions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended context is inferable but not stated.

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