browser_wait_for_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the call blocks, what happens on timeout (error vs. false return), that it polls, or that the default timeout is 10s. 'Wait until' implies blocking, which is the only behavioral hint provided.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification for a six-parameter tool with no annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 6-parameter polling/wait tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations the description omits critical context: timeout semantics, failure behavior, and matching/case rules. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It alludes to only two parameters (text, selector) with no format or matching details, and never mentions case_sensitive, timeout_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, or session_id.

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 gives a specific verb (wait) and resource (text) plus a location qualifier (in a selector), so the core behavior is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the crowded wait family (browser_wait_for_selector, browser_wait_for_url, browser_wait_for_function, browser_wait_for_network_idle), so an agent must rely on the name alone to pick correctly.

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 use this tool versus the four sibling wait tools, and no statement of preconditions (e.g. an active session, page loaded). The only usage signal is the tool name itself.

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