browser_wait

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the bare action. It doesn't specify whether the wait is blocking, whether it can be interrupted, or whether it interacts with page load state. For a wait operation, this lack of detail leaves important behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function without any fluff. Every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple, single-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the complete schema, the description is still minimal. It doesn't explain why one might use this wait (e.g., to allow page loading), whether it blocks further actions, or what the return value is. There is no context to help the agent decide when to apply it.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the parameter description ('The time to wait in seconds'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline for high coverage is 3, and no parameter information is missing.

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: 'Wait for a specified time in seconds'. It uses a specific verb ('wait') and identifies the resource ('specified time'). It distinguishes itself from sibling browser tools which are navigation, clicking, typing, etc. No ambiguity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a fixed delay, or that it might be preferable to wait for elements or conditions. As a result, the agent receives no context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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