Browser Wait For

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

The description discloses that the tool actively waits and can stop on text, selector match, or elapsed time, which is real behavioral content. However, with no annotations available, it omits important behavior such as what happens when no condition is met before timeout_ms, whether it throws or returns, and whether 'selector matches' means exists, visible, or something else.

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 front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and clearly enumerates the three wait modes. It is appropriately brief for a simple wait utility, though it could add one clause about timeout behavior without losing conciseness.

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 tool with six optional parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the missing timeout semantics and unclear parameter relationships leave the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It maps 'text', 'selector', and 'time_s' to the three wait modes, but it does not clarify 'tab', 'session', 'timeout_ms', or how parameters interact, such as whether text and selector are alternatives or combined.

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 uses a specific verb ('wait') and names three concrete conditions: text appearing, a selector matching, or a fixed time passing. This distinguishes browser_wait_for from sibling tools like browser_find or browser_click, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_find or browser_snapshot, and there are no exclusions or preconditions. The three wait modes imply a synchronization use case, but the agent must infer the appropriate context on its own.

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