browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value with the precedence rule for text versus textGone, but says nothing about the default timeout, the 30-second ceiling, or whether a wait that times out throws an error or returns a status.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the primary behavior comes first and the subtle combined-argument rule is expanded immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Since all three parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and annotations carry the safety profile, the missing pieces are minor details such as default behavior with zero arguments and timeout semantics. That is short of complete but not a real obstacle.

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% and each parameter is documented, so the baseline would be 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the cross-parameter interaction (text and textGone racing, and how time becomes a timeout rather than a delay).

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 and resource: wait for text to appear, text to disappear, or elapsed time. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like browser_click or browser_snapshot, though it never explicitly says the wait happens on the current page.

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?

It implies the use case (waiting for dynamic content or a delay) and explains how the arguments combine, but it never says when to prefer this over, say, browser_find or browser_snapshot polling, nor does it state what happens if no argument is supplied.

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