browser_wait_stable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool monitors DOM mutations and uses an 800ms quiet period, giving the agent insight into the underlying mechanism. However, it does not state what happens on timeout, whether it returns any value, or if it is strictly read-only, leaving some behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase (DOM stop changing, 800ms, use cases) contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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 the lack of annotations and no schema coverage, the description is not complete enough. It omits parameter semantics, timeout behavior, and clear differentiation from sibling wait tools beyond a narrow use case. The agent would need to infer too much for a confidently 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. It mentions the default 800ms silence window but fails to explain the meaning or role of task_id and timeout_ms, leaving the agent without necessary parameter context.

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 defines the action: waits for the page DOM to stop changing, with a specified silent window (default 800ms). It also explicitly names use cases (streaming reply completion, animation end), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling wait tools like browser_wait_ms and browser_wait_navigation.

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 usage context (when streaming or animations are finishing) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling context implies differentiation, yet the description stops short of explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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