browser_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It accurately states the behavior (waiting a fixed number of milliseconds) and adds a caution, but does not explain what happens after the wait, why it should be used sparingly, or whether it blocks or only pauses automation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the action first, then the parameter unit, then the caution. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior and unit. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it versus browser_wait_for_text and does not describe the return value or side effects, leaving some context incomplete.

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?

The schema only defines 'ms' as a number with no description, so the description must clarify meaning. It does convey that the value is in milliseconds, but it does not specify constraints like allowed range, integer-only, or typical limits.

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 function: waiting a fixed number of milliseconds. It distinguishes itself from sibling browser_wait_for_text by specifying a fixed duration rather than a condition-based wait.

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 'use sparingly' gives some usage caution, implying fixed delays should be avoided when possible. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer alternatives like browser_wait_for_text or provide when/when-not selection rules.

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