browser_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is non-destructive, if it modifies state, or what happens on timeout (e.g., error vs. return). The term 'bounded' is vague and could imply a limit, but the description does not clarify how the condition is enforced or what behavior occurs when it is not met.

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 immediately conveys the core purpose and context ('explicitly shared tab'). It avoids unnecessary details and front-loads the key action. The word 'bounded' could be replaced with a more common term like 'limited' for clarity, but overall it is efficient.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and complex nested locator object, the description is minimal but covers the essential purpose and use case. However, it lacks details on return behavior, timeout handling, and interaction with the browser state, which a tool with a nested schema and no annotations should ideally provide. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 parameter locator has a description explaining it is a 'semantic accessibility-tree locator' and explicitly excludes CSS and scripts, adding meaning beyond the schema structure. timeout_ms and collaboration_id rely entirely on schema defaults and patterns. With schema coverage at 33% (only locator has description), the description partially compensates by clarifying the locator's nature.

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 'wait' as a specific verb and 'bounded semantic condition' as the resource, distinguishing it clearly from other browser tools like 'click' or 'navigate'. The phrase 'explicitly shared tab' adds context about the target environment. However, 'bounded' is somewhat technical and could be clarified.

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 the tool is used for waiting on a condition in a shared tab, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_snapshot or browser_dialog for checking page states. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, and there are no sibling references for differentiation.

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