browser_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions waiting for text or time, which covers basic use cases, but does not explain what happens if multiple parameters are supplied, whether it blocks other actions, or behavior on timeout. The description is adequate but lacks detail on side effects.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could benefit from a second sentence clarifying parameter behavior (e.g., 'Text, time, and text_gone can be used independently.'). Still, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0 required, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, timeout behavior, or what happens when no parameter is passed. It leaves the agent guessing about how to interpret the interplay of parameters.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema—it merely summarizes the two main waiting modes. With complete schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 that the tool waits for text appearance/disappearance or a specified time. It distinguishes itself from other browser tools by focusing on waiting, but could be more explicit about the 'wait for text to disappear' option from the text_gone parameter.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like waiting for page load or navigation. It does not mention that it can be used to wait for dynamic content after actions like clicks, nor does it explain the interplay of the three parameters (e.g., they are independent or exclusive).

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