browser_wait_for_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the wait condition but does not disclose what happens on timeout (error? return?), whether it polls or uses an event, whether it returns any value, or whether it blocks indefinitely. The timeout parameter is in the schema but the description doesn't explain its behavior (e.g., default 15 seconds, what happens when exceeded).

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core behavior. It earns its place with no filler, though it could have added a brief note about timeout behavior without becoming bloated.

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 simple wait tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is close to adequate, but the missing timeout semantics and lack of failure behavior leave an agent uncertain about edge cases. Given the sibling set includes browser_wait and browser_wait_for_element, a brief differentiation would improve completeness.

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 for the undocumented 'timeout' parameter. The description does not mention the timeout parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its units (seconds? milliseconds?) and behavior from the schema's default of 15. This is a clear gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Wait') and a precise condition (readyState is 'complete'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It is distinguishable from siblings like browser_wait and browser_wait_for_element because it targets page load state rather than a fixed delay or element presence, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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: call this after navigation to ensure the page has finished loading. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus browser_wait or browser_wait_for_element, nor does it mention that it may be unnecessary for some SPAs or that readyState 'complete' may not mean all resources are loaded. The context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not stated.

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