browse_wait_for

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and leaves the important traits unstated: what happens on timeout (error, exception, boolean?), whether polling blocks the session, and whether the call must precede or follow other browse_* calls. Only the core 'waits' semantics are conveyed.

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 no filler, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency for a three-parameter asynchronous tool. Every word earns its place, there just are not enough of them.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter description coverage means the description should explain return/timeout semantics and the selector-vs-text relationship; it explains neither. An agent cannot tell what a successful or failed wait yields.

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%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: it names 'selector' and 'text' as the wait conditions but never says they are alternatives (or whether both may be supplied) nor explains the default empty-string behavior. 'timeout_ms' is entirely undocumented in both schema and 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 verb 'wait until' plus the conditions 'selector exists or text appears' makes the tool's blocking, condition-polling nature concrete. It is distinguishable in spirit from read-oriented siblings like browse_get_text or browse_snapshot, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 versus alternatives such as browse_snapshot or browse_get_text, nor any precondition (e.g., use after a click that triggers async rendering). The agent must infer the timing use case on its own.

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