browser_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the timeout behavior: '超时返回WARNING' (returns WARNING on timeout). However, it does not explain success return values, blocking behavior, or what happens if the element/text never appears, leaving the agent with limited insight into the tool's runtime behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two short sentences. Both sentences carry essential information: the waiting purpose and the timeout warning. No redundant or irrelevant content is present.

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?

Despite its conciseness, the description is incomplete for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It fails to explain parameter roles, success behavior, error handling, or when to prefer sibling tools. The agent would need to rely on the schema alone, which itself lacks descriptions, making it highly challenging to use correctly.

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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'element or text' without mapping to specific parameters like ref, name, role, or text. It does not clarify the function of timeout or task_id, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics from names alone.

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 states a clear verb and resource: '等待元素或文本出现' (Wait for element or text to appear). This distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_wait_ms (timed wait) and browser_wait_navigation (navigation wait), though it does not explicitly name alternative 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as browser_wait_stable or browser_wait_ms. It only implies a general waiting scenario, without exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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