browser_wait

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the core waiting behavior but omits critical traits: what happens if the selector/text never appears, whether a timeout exists, whether the wait is a single check or polling, and the effect of combining parameters. It also fails to mention the textGone mode entirely.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and earns its place, though additional behavioral details would be needed elsewhere.

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?

With 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin for fully reliable invocation. An agent cannot confidently know duration units, error/timeout behavior, or how textGone works, making the tool under-specified for its actual complexity.

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 adds some meaning by mapping selector, text, and time to waiting modes, but it does not define parameter semantics precisely: no units for time, no selector syntax, no behavior for textGone, and no guidance on which parameters are exclusive or combinable.

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/text' or 'fixed duration'), making the tool's role understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of the sibling tools overlap with waiting, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to wait for a selector, for text, or for a fixed amount of time. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no mention of how to choose among the wait modes.

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