browser_wait_for_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explain how URL matching is performed (e.g., regex full match vs partial, case sensitivity), what happens on timeout, or whether this waits for navigation or just polls the current URL. This is minimal beyond the literal name.

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 fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple wait operation, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to distinguish itself from browser_wait_for_navigation or browser_wait_for_load, does not mention polling behavior or timeout handling, and provides no examples or edge cases. The description would leave an agent guessing about exact semantics.

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%: both `urlPattern` (regex string) and `timeout` (default 30000) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: waiting for a URL to match a pattern. It uses a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('URL'), and the pattern-matching aspect distinguishes it from other wait tools like browser_wait_for_load and browser_wait_for_navigation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like browser_wait_for_navigation (waiting for navigation) or browser_wait_for_selector (waiting for a DOM element). The description does not mention typical scenarios or exclusions, leaving the user to infer usage from the name alone.

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