browser_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary waiting behavior but omits critical details such as what happens on timeout, whether it polls, whether it throws an error, and what the return value is. For a wait tool, these details are essential for agent trust and 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 with no waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple waiting action, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with six parameters, which is why some information is missing.

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, no annotations, and a schema with only 50% parameter descriptions, the description does not provide enough context. It does not explain return values, failure semantics, or how the timeout parameter interacts with the wait conditions. The description is incomplete for an agent to know the full behavior.

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 description maps 'target, text, or a bounded duration' to the corresponding schema properties, adding useful semantic context that these are alternatives. However, it does not elaborate on timeout, pageId, sessionId, or constraints (e.g., maximum time). With schema description coverage at 50%, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Wait' and lists the three waitable conditions (target, text, bounded duration), making the tool's purpose clear. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools, it is easily distinguished from browser_click or browser_navigate.

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 (waiting for a target/text or a bounded duration) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternative approaches, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context of synchronization is absent, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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