browser_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool is 'useful for SPAs and dynamic content,' it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like what happens when the timeout is reached (does it fail? return null?), whether it blocks execution, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for a mutation/interaction tool in a browser context.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides useful context. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 that this is a browser interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicator? element handle?), error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. For a tool that interacts with dynamic web content, more context about outcomes and failure modes is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'element to appear, element to disappear, or a fixed delay' which loosely maps to the 'state' and 'delay' parameters, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Wait for a condition: element to appear, element to disappear, or a fixed delay.' It specifies the verb ('wait') and the resources/conditions (element states, delay), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like browser_find or browser_text that might also involve waiting or element detection.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for SPAs and dynamic content.' This gives practical guidance about scenarios where waiting is necessary. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when browser_find might be more appropriate).

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