Waits for specified text to appear or disappear, or for a set time to pass, so browser automation can synchronize with page changes instead of relying on fixed delays.
Wait for text to appear or disappear or a specified time to pass [PlayGuard] Prefer waiting for text over a fixed time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | The text to wait for | |
| time | No | The time to wait in seconds | |
| textGone | No | The text to wait for to disappear |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that this is a blocking wait and nudges toward text conditions, but says nothing about timeout behavior, what happens if no parameter is supplied (all three are optional), or whether a timeout raises an error versus returning a negative result.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the actionable preference. Zero filler. Slightly terse given the tool's subtleties, but nothing is wasted.
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 three-optional-parameter blocking tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know the timeout ceiling, the behavior when zero parameters are passed, and how a failed wait is reported. None of that is present, though the core semantics and the recommended usage pattern are covered.
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 100%, so each of text/textGone/time is already documented precisely. The description only restates the same three modes at a higher level and adds no syntax, units, or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 ('wait for') with the exact three trigger conditions (text appears, text disappears, time passes), which makes it unmistakable among browser_* siblings that act rather than block. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but no other tool in the list is a wait primitive, so disambiguation is effectively achieved.
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 PlayGuard note gives explicit preference guidance: use text-based waiting over fixed-duration waiting. That is a real decision rule an agent can apply. What's missing is guidance on when waiting is needed at all versus when a snapshot/click already settles the page, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.