browser_wait_for_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the waiting condition and timeout behavior, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on timeout (error vs. return value), whether the text can be in hidden elements, or whether the wait re-checks continuously.

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 conveys the core behavior immediately. There is no filler, and the key condition ('text appears anywhere on the page') is front-loaded before the timeout note.

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 two-parameter wait tool, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. Still, missing timeout semantics (units, default, timeout failure behavior) and return-value information leave slight gaps that could affect an agent's ability to call it correctly in all situations.

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 0%, and the description does not add meaningful detail about the parameters. It references 'given text' and 'timeout', but does not specify timeout units, default values, whether timeout is in milliseconds, or whether text matching is exact/substring/case-sensitive.

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: to wait until a given text appears anywhere on the page or until a timeout occurs. It uses a specific verb ('wait') and a clear resource ('text'), which distinguishes it from generic wait tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 context of use is implied: use this tool when you need to block until specific text is visible or present on the page. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, how it differs from browser_wait, or when browser_read_text or browser_snapshot might be more appropriate.

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