scraping_browser_wait_for_ref

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call blocks until visibility and depends on a prior snapshot, but says nothing about what happens on timeout (error vs. return) or the default 30s blocking behavior. Adequate but with a real gap for a wait primitive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite and rationale. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only browser wait tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and prerequisite adequately. The only unmet need is failure/timeout semantics, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100%, so ref, element, and timeout are already documented in the schema, including the ARIA-snapshot origin of ref and the 30000ms default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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+resource: waiting for an element to become visible, keyed by its ARIA ref. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from CSS-selector-based waiting and ties into the scraping_browser_* family by naming the ref source.

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?

Explicitly says to call scraping_browser_snapshot first to obtain valid refs and asserts this approach is more reliable than CSS selectors, giving a clear prerequisite and rationale. It does not, however, state when this tool should be skipped or what alternatives exist for other wait conditions.

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