browser_wait_for

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 10-second per-call cap, the repeated-call pattern, and cautions against blindly retrying with longer waits. It stops short of describing timeout/error behavior or whether text and time parameters combine, but the key behavioral constraints are present.

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 three focused sentences: purpose, duration limit, and failure guidance. Every sentence adds operational value, with the core wait behavior front-loaded and no redundant filler.

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 description covers the main operational details an agent needs: what to wait for, max duration, how to handle longer waits, failure advice, and tab targeting. It does not describe the return value or timeout behavior, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema, but the description remains adequate for correct invocation.

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 documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the max-10s rule and tab targeting, but adds little meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 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 operation: wait for text to appear or wait a fixed duration. It names the subject (the page), the two supported modes, and is immediately distinguishable from sibling navigation, interaction, and inspection tools.

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?

It provides clear guidance on how to use the tool: call multiple times for longer waits, avoid blindly increasing wait time on failure, and target a specific tab when needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with this wait-specific functionality.

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