Pause execution for a specified duration in seconds to synchronize browser actions. Use to introduce delays up to 10 seconds for timing control.
Waits for a specified duration in seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seconds | Yes | Seconds to wait. | |
| session_id | No | Optional browser tab/session identifier. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior but does not mention blocking semantics, session-scoped behavior, or what happens with edge values such as 0 or 10 seconds. As a simple, non-destructive wait operation, the minimal disclosure is acceptable but not rich.
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 with zero wasted words. It states the action and the unit of measurement, which is all that is needed for a tool of this 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 the tool's low complexity, a two-parameter schema with full descriptions, and the absence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could be more complete by mentioning when a wait is appropriate, but nothing essential about invoking the tool is missing.
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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the notion of a duration. Accordingly, baseline score 3 applies.
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 ('waits') and a specific resource ('a specified duration in seconds'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling browser actions like browser_navigate or browser_click, which perform different operations.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion cases. However, in a browser automation context, waiting is a recognizable low-level utility, and no sibling tool duplicates this function, so the appropriate usage is largely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.