browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds only the basic waiting behavior but omits critical details like polling mechanism, timeout behavior, or what happens if text never appears/disappears. This is insufficient for a blocking operation.

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 concise sentence (14 words) that is front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mapping parameters to conditions.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify that exactly one parameter should be used, what the return value is, or how to handle failures like timeouts. It also fails to differentiate from similar waiting tools among siblings.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context linking parameters to appearance/disappearance/time, but the schema already describes each parameter. No new semantic meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 waits for text to appear, disappear, or a specified time to pass. This is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'challenge_wait' or 'human_wait' that also deal with waiting, lacking differentiation.

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 compared to alternatives such as 'challenge_wait', 'human_wait', or other browser tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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