browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to repeat those. It does add the behavioral context of what it waits for (text appear/disappear, time passing), but it does not disclose important details such as whether it polls continuously, whether there is a timeout, or what happens if multiple conditions are specified simultaneously. These are behavioral aspects beyond the scope of the annotations.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates all conditions with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easily scannable for an agent.

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 required fields, the description covers the basic use cases (text appear, text disappear, sleep). However, it misses critical edge cases: behavior when multiple parameters are provided (e.g., both text and time), timeout behavior, and what the tool returns after waiting. Given the absence of an output schema, these gaps are meaningful for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret results.

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 descriptions are present (coverage 100%) but generic: 'The text to wait for' and 'The text to wait for to disappear' do not clarify which parameter corresponds to appearance vs. disappearance. The tool description explicitly maps text to appearance, textGone to disappearance, and time to 'a specified time to pass', adding meaning that the schema alone does not convey. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('wait for') with three distinct conditions: text appearance, text disappearance, or a time delay. It uniquely identifies this tool's purpose among the browser sibling tools, none of which handle waiting. The verb-resource pairing is explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied by the tool's unique purpose: it is the only wait-related tool in the sibling list, so an agent understands it is meant for waiting. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over other tools (e.g., after navigation, before assertions) and no exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, so there is no routing information.

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