browser_wait_for

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what triggers the wait (text appearance/disappearance or time), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail aspects like timeout behavior, concurrency, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by covering the key actions (wait for text appear/disappear or time), making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations handling safety, completeness is borderline but not fully robust for a waiting operation in a browser context.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions for time, text, and textGone. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning these parameters implicitly ('text to appear or disappear or a specified time'), but doesn't clarify interactions (e.g., if multiple parameters are used together) or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 as waiting for text to appear/disappear or for time to pass, which is a specific action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_click or browser_type by focusing on waiting rather than interaction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the browser context, which is implied but could be more precise.

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 scenarios (waiting for text changes or time), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like browser_network_requests for monitoring requests or browser_handle_dialog for pop-ups. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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