browser_condition

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden and does a solid job: it explains polling semantics, the meaning of timeoutMs > 0, and the return shape {value, elapsedMs}. It does not fully specify the return type of 'value' or behavior when both selector and value are provided, but the core runtime behavior is disclosed.

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 two sentences with no filler: it states the purpose, the polling behavior, and the return shape in a compact, front-loaded way. Every clause earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential return object and timeout behavior. It is missing guidance on the case where neither selector nor value is supplied, but for a condition-checking tool this is a minor gap given the otherwise thorough parameter schema.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only a marginal restatement of timeout behavior and does not provide extra meaning such as selector/value precedence or variable expression syntax, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a condition checker for elements or variable conditions, using a specific verb ('Checks') and named resources ('element', 'variable condition'). It is clear in isolation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like browser_eval, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when a condition needs to be checked or waited on, especially with polling via timeoutMs. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the comparison to siblings like browser_eval implicit rather than explicit.

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