browser_wait_navigation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'wait for navigation to complete' but does not mention timeout handling, what constitutes 'complete', return values, or side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 there are 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, timeout behavior, or how url_contains affects waiting. A simple wait tool still needs to clarify these aspects.

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 description provides no information about the parameters (task_id, timeout, url_contains). The schema also lacks descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate but fails to explain any parameter's purpose or expected value.

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 it waits for navigation triggered by click/submit to complete. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_wait (generic wait), browser_wait_stable, and browser_wait_ms by specifying the trigger context.

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 phrase 'click/submit触发的' implies it should be used after a click or submit action. This gives clear context on when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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