browser_wait_for

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 says the tool waits for conditions but does not state whether it blocks execution, how default timeouts behave, what happens on timeout/failure, or what the tool returns. These are important behavioral traits for a wait tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its extreme brevity leaves important details to the schema and makes it less informative than it could be.

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 six parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how the wait modes map to specific parameters, default timeout behavior, or the result of a successful or failed wait.

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 0% for all six parameters, so the description must compensate. It names broad concepts that correspond to some parameters (time, text, selector state), but does not clarify timeoutMs, textGone, or the state enum values, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 ('Wait for') and the three condition categories (time, text appearance/disappearance, selector state), which maps to the tool's parameters. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling browser_* tools, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like browser_find or browser_snapshot.

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 implies the tool is used to wait for certain conditions, but it gives no guidance on when to choose it over browser_find, browser_snapshot, or other siblings, nor when each wait mode is appropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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