browser_wait_for_selector

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 discloses only that the wait ends on appearance or timeout, but says nothing about what happens on timeout (error vs. falsy return), whether it polls or blocks, whether it is safe/non-destructive, or any session requirement. An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required, but the timeout semantics remain undisclosed.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient rather than padded, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than a model of concision.

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 three-parameter browser tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and five closely related wait siblings, this description is not complete enough. The output schema covers return values, but timeout behavior, selector format, and sibling differentiation are all missing.

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% and there are three parameters (selector, session_id, timeout_seconds) with no per-field descriptions. The description only alludes to the timeout concept and adds no meaning for selector syntax (CSS vs. XPath) or the required session_id, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb (wait) and a resource (selector), so an agent knows the operation, but the phrasing largely restates the tool name. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling wait tools (browser_wait, browser_wait_for_text, browser_wait_for_url, browser_wait_for_function, browser_wait_for_network_idle), so the reader must infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over browser_wait, browser_wait_for_text, or browser_wait_for_function, nor any prerequisite or sequencing note (e.g., run after navigation). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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