browser_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return value ('Returns the updated page snapshot') and adds a valuable prompt-injection warning about untrusted page content. However, it omits key behavioral facts an agent needs: what happens when the timeout elapses (silent return vs. error), whether the wait blocks, and how text matching is performed (substring vs. exact). Those gaps keep it at a minimum-viable 3 for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the wait mechanism followed by the return value and the safety note. Every sentence earns its place, though the security sentence, while valuable, is somewhat tangential to the tool's mechanics.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned snapshot. For a 6-optional-parameter wait tool with only a 30/120s timeout caveat, the definition is nearly complete; only the timeout-failure behavior remains unspecified.

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 67%, with the snapshot, screenshot, timeSeconds, and timeoutSeconds parameters documented inline. The description maps loosely to text/textGone ('appears or disappears') and timeSeconds ('a number of seconds') but adds no syntax, matching semantics, or default information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already does most of the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource pair ('wait' on page state) plus the two trigger modes (text appears/disappears, or a fixed duration), which is enough for an agent to identify it immediately. No sibling tool overlaps this behavior, so sibling differentiation is not needed. Slightly short of 5 because the return behavior is tied to the optional snapshot flag rather than being unconditional.

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?

'Wait until text appears or disappears... or for a number of seconds' implies the usage context (synchronizing on dynamic page state) but never states when to prefer this over polling with browser_snapshot or browser_evaluate. No exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. Implied usage only.

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