browser_wait_ms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the wait behavior and upper time limit, but does not mention return values or whether it checks page state. The use cases give some context, but for a 'pure wait' more could be said about non-interference.

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 concise sentence with a parenthetical, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple wait tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and a safety limit. It lacks explicit return behavior and task_id semantics, but given simplicity this is adequate.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters. The description explains the ms parameter by referencing the specified milliseconds, but task_id is not addressed. Since ms is straightforward from the name, this is partially sufficient.

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 performs a pure wait for a specified number of milliseconds, with explicit use cases ('escape hatch' for animations/rate limiting/delayed rendering). This distinguishes it from sibling wait tools like browser_wait_stable or browser_wait_navigation, though it does not name alternatives directly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance via the 'escape hatch' phrase, indicating this is for scenarios where animation, rate limiting, or delayed rendering need a fixed delay. It also mentions the upper bound (timeout - 5s), but does not explicitly contrast with conditional waits.

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