browser_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that waiting does not consume tokens and that the tool blocks until a change occurs, but it says nothing about timeout behavior, what is returned when the wait ends, or whether the call fails on timeout.

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?

A single compact sentence pair with the core mechanism front-loaded and the use case trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical "sin gastar tokens" could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a caller gets back after the wait resolves or times out. It covers the trigger conditions well but leaves the result/timeout contract unspecified for a 4-parameter blocking tool.

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 all four parameters (text, timeout, selector, titleChange) are already documented in the schema. The description only illustrates the titleChange case with an example; it adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema, so 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 ("Espera") and the exact trigger conditions: new text, title change, or regex match, with a concrete example ("(3) WhatsApp"). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling browser_wait, which is the most likely confusion point.

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?

"Ideal para vigilar chats, correos o resultados que tardan" gives a clear context of use. However it offers no exclusions or explicit guidance on when to prefer browser_wait or browser_snapshot instead of this tool.

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