browser_wait_for_selector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens on timeout (e.g., error vs. boolean), whether it polls, whether it checks visibility or mere presence, or whether the element must already be present. The one-line description leaves critical behavior unspecified.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the core action in minimal length. All words contribute to meaning, earning a perfect score for 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It lacks critical information about return values, timeout behavior, error handling, and the meaning of 'appear' (e.g., exists vs. visible). The description is insufficient for a wait tool with several behavioral unknowns.

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% for both 'selector' and 'timeout', including a default for timeout. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not supplement parameter semantics with additional context or examples.

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 resource ('an element'), clearly indicating the tool waits for a selector to appear. It distinguishes itself from sibling wait tools like browser_wait_for_load, browser_wait_for_navigation, browser_wait_for_url, and browser_wait_for_response by focusing specifically on the presence of an element.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for waiting on an element, but does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, especially when several sibling wait tools exist. No alternative tools are referenced.

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