browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description's marginal job is to explain wait semantics — and it does not. The single most important behavior for a wait tool, what happens when the timeout elapses (throw vs. return a negative result), is never stated, nor is whether it blocks other operations.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary mode and trailing the fallback mode. Minor inaccuracy in the parenthetical state list (says 'appear ... visible/hidden/attached' while the enum also includes 'detached') is the only blemish.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at minimum establish return/timeout behavior and the full state vocabulary; it does neither. For a four-parameter, zero-required tool with no schema documentation, this leaves a real gap an agent must guess around.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and only partially does. It maps 'text'/'selector' to the two wait modes and names usable states, but it calls out only three of the four enum values (omitting 'detached') and never defines what 'attached' vs 'visible' means or that text and selector should not both be supplied.

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?

States a specific verb (wait) and the two wait-able resources (selector or text), plus the alternate timeout-only mode, so the agent knows this is a blocking-until-condition tool rather than a poll/read tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like browser_get_text or browser_snapshot, which is the only thing keeping it from a 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?

Usage is implied: pass selector/text to block on a condition, or pass only timeoutMs to pause. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules, no note that text and selector are alternatives, and no mention of a sibling for non-blocking inspection. Useful but inferred rather than stated.

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