wait_and_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: it waits for a selector/text condition and then returns a snapshot. However, it does not disclose timeout behavior, the format of the returned snapshot, or how selector and text interact when both are supplied. These are notable gaps given the absence of any annotation support.

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 two sentences with zero filler: the first states the core behavior and the second explains its relationship to sibling tools. The key behavior is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 four parameters including a four-valued state enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the 25-word description leaves essential gaps. It does not explain what the returned snapshot contains, what happens when the wait times out, or what 'attached' vs 'hidden' vs 'detached' mean in the context of this tool.

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 only 50%—text and selector have schema descriptions, while state and timeout do not—and the tool description adds no meaning beyond repeating 'selector/text' as the wait targets. The state enum (visible/hidden/attached/detached) and timeout semantics are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a concrete behavior—'Wait for selector/text then return snapshot'—with a specific verb and resource. Naming the composition, 'Combines wait_for + browser_snapshot in one call,' distinguishes it from snapshot siblings like click_and_snapshot and navigate_and_snapshot, as well as from wait_for and browser_snapshot individually.

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 phrase 'Combines wait_for + browser_snapshot in one call' gives clear context and implicitly names the alternative: invoking those two tools separately. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, such as needing intermediate actions between the wait and the snapshot, or when wait_for_navigation or wait_for_any_of would be the appropriate wait primitive.

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