browser_wait

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 what the tool does but fails to mention critical behavior such as timeout handling (what happens if the element never appears), error conditions, or return values. This is a significant gap for a wait operation, as agents need to know whether to expect a timeout or success signal.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core function. It is concise and free of extraneous information, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple but lacks essential contextual details. No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what happens after the wait (e.g., return value, timeout behavior, errors). For an agent to invoke this reliably, knowing the timeout or failure semantics is crucial, yet this information is absent.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'target' is described as a selector/ref or milliseconds, and 'sessionId' is described as a browser session ID. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline score 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 states the tool's function: waiting for an element to appear or for a specified duration. It uses a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('element'/'time'), distinguishing it from sibling browser tools that perform actions like clicking or navigating. However, 'appear' is slightly ambiguous (presence vs. visibility), so it's not a perfect 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 you need to wait for a condition (element appearance) or a delay. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling list makes it clear this is the only wait-related tool. There is no exclusionary guidance, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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