browser_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses waiting behavior, timeout default, and return of text content. However, it does not specify behavior on timeout (e.g., throws error vs. returns null) or if the element must be visible (vs. just in DOM).

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, usage tip, and parameter details. Front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved by structuring parameter info more clearly.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return value. However, it lacks details on error states, visibility checks, and interaction with other browser tools, which could be helpful given the sibling 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'timeout' as max milliseconds and default 10000, and implies 'selector' is a CSS selector. However, it adds limited detail beyond parameter names, leaving some ambiguity (e.g., no mention of format for selector).

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 action ('wait for') and the resource ('element matching the CSS selector to appear'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_find_elements by focusing on waiting for appearance, which is a unique function.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Useful after triggering an action that causes a loading state.' This provides clear context, though no direct exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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