browser_wait_for

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

Annotations mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, which the description reinforces. However, the description does not disclose behavior when multiple parameters are combined (e.g., both text and time), potential error conditions, or timeout behavior, which are important for correct invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core functionality with no extraneous 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?

Given no output schema and simple behavior, the description lacks critical details about parameter combination logic, error handling, and return behavior. Agents may need to infer behavior from the parameter descriptions alone, which is insufficient for robust decision-making.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds context by linking 'text' to 'appear', 'textGone' to 'disappear', and 'time' to a wait duration. However, it does not explain interaction between parameters or provide formatting details beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: waiting for text to appear, disappear, or a specified time. It distinguishes itself from sibling browser action tools like click or navigate by focusing on waiting.

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 scenarios (waiting for text or time) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like polling or other wait mechanisms. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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