playwright__browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it waits for text to appear/disappear or time, but it does not disclose timeout behavior, whether conditions are mutually exclusive, or what happens if the timeout is exceeded. With annotations covering the safe-read nature, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. The action and three modes are front-loaded in a clear structure, though the phrase 'or a specified time to pass' is slightly awkward and could be clearer about which parameter it maps to.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose. However, it omits important behavioral details like default timeouts, error handling on timeout, and whether the tool returns after the condition is met or after a fixed delay. An agent could call it correctly but might not know how to handle non-success cases.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description mirrors this by listing text, textGone, and time, but does not clarify whether parameters are mutually exclusive or how combinations behave. It adds no significant meaning 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 clearly states the verb 'wait for' and the resources involved: text appearing, text disappearing, or a time delay. It specifies the exact three behaviors the tool supports, which distinguishes it from all sibling browser tools like find, click, or navigate.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after navigation, before assertions, or instead of polling. The description only states the functionality, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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