browser_wait_for

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavior disclosure. It offers no information about waiting semantics, timeouts, polling behavior, or what happens when conditions are not met. The schema parameter descriptions hint at 'wait for text to appear/disappear' but the description itself adds nothing.

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 under-specified rather than concise. '等待条件' is two characters that convey no actionable information, and the structure is a bare phrase rather than a clear explanatory sentence.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain return values, error handling, or the waiting mechanism. It is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, especially given sibling tools that require similar context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself provides no parameter information, but the schema descriptions for 'text', 'textGone', and 'time' are present. However, the relationship between these parameters (e.g., time as a timeout vs. fixed wait) is not clarified by the description.

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 '等待条件' is a vague noun phrase meaning 'wait condition' and does not state the tool's action or resource. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'browser_wait_for', providing no distinction from sibling browser tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_click or browser_navigate, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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