browser_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states the basic wait behavior. It does not disclose what happens if the selector never appears, whether there is a timeout, what the return value is, or how the two modes interact when both parameters are provided. These are material gaps for a tool that can potentially block indefinitely.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. It conveys both operational modes in a compact, readable way.

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?

Despite the tool's low parameter count, the description omits crucial invocational details: there are no required parameters, yet the rationale for calling with neither, either, or both parameters is unexplained. The absence of an output schema makes the lack of return value information more significant, and the timeout/error behavior is unspecified, leaving an agent unable to predict failure modes.

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%, and the description adds little beyond the parameter descriptions: it clarifies that the parameters represent two alternative modes. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage; the description does not introduce new semantic pitfalls.

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 the operation ('wait') and the two resources involved: a CSS selector to appear or a sleep duration in milliseconds. It is unambiguous and immediately distinguishes the tool from navigation, clicking, typing, and other browser actions. The verb-resource pairing is specific and informative.

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 usage contexts (wait for an element before interacting, or pause execution) but does not explicitly specify when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There are no sibling wait tools, so the lack of explicit alternatives is a minor gap, but the usage guidance is only implicit.

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