scraping_browser_wait_for_ref

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive, read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about waiting for visibility and the ARIA ref dependency, but it omits important behavior such as what happens on timeout or whether it returns a value.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key prerequisite. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 browser wait tool, the description covers the critical workflow requirement of obtaining a ref from the snapshot and explains why ARIA refs are preferred. The main missing piece is failure behavior on timeout, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 the individual parameters are already documented. The description adds the meaningful dependency that ref comes from the ARIA snapshot, but it does not add extra detail about timeout semantics or element usage beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: wait for an element to be visible using a ref from the ARIA snapshot. It distinguishes itself from selector-based approaches by naming ARIA refs explicitly and pointing to the snapshot tool as the source of refs.

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?

It gives clear prerequisite guidance: call scraping_browser_snapshot first to obtain a valid ref. It also explains a preference over CSS selectors, though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative wait mechanisms.

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