browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. However, it adds no further behavioral traits beyond the basic wait conditions. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the key idea. No extra words or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity, the description lacks details on behavior when multiple parameters are provided, what happens if no parameters are given, or the return value. No output schema exists, so these gaps reduce completeness for a tool with no required parameters.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description summarizes the three conditions (appear, disappear, time) but does not add deeper semantics like mutual exclusivity or timeout behavior. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 waits for text to appear or disappear or a specified time to pass. It uses a specific verb ('wait') and identifies the resources (text, time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like clicking or 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?

The description implies when to use (waiting for text or time) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It lacks exclusionary language or comparisons to sibling tools, so the usage context is only partially clear.

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