browser_wait_ready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that skipped frames and timeouts are reported, that it does not guarantee business/AJAX completion, and that a fresh snapshot is needed afterward. It omits whether the wait is blocking or returns a status payload, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then the reporting behavior, then the caveat. No filler; every sentence adds distinct information.

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 output schema exists, and the description does cover the return-relevant behavior (skipped frames, timeouts) plus the key limitation. But for a fully-undocumented 3-parameter tool, the absence of any parameter detail leaves a meaningful gap an agent would hit on first invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters (seconds, include_frames, stable_seconds) are named or explained. The phrases "descendant frames" and "stable DOM markup" loosely hint at include_frames and stable_seconds, but units, defaults, and the interaction between timeout and stability window are unstated.

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 precise verb+resource: waits for readyState=complete and stable DOM in the current frame and accessible descendant frames. Clear scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like browser_wait_text or browser_snapshot.

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?

Gives an actionable follow-up ("read a fresh snapshot afterward") and boundaries ("does not guarantee business completion or future AJAX"), which frames when the result is insufficient. However, it never says when to choose this over browser_wait_text or browser_snapshot, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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