playwright__browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it doesn't say what happens on timeout, whether it blocks the page, or whether multiple conditions can be combined. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this description contributes essentially nothing behavioral.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler, and the three operating modes are enumerated up front. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 three-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits an important operational fact: nothing states that at least one of text/textGone/time must be supplied, nor what the tool returns or how it behaves when the condition is already satisfied.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents each of the three parameters including the 30-second cap on 'time'. The description only loosely echoes those concepts ('text to appear or disappear or a specified time') and adds no syntax or precedence detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 pairs a specific verb (Wait for) with three concrete conditions (text appears, text disappears, time elapses), so an agent immediately knows the tool's scope. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like browser_click or browser_snapshot, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to alternatives (e.g., snapshot/find for polling content). The only cue is the implicit 'you need to wait' condition, which is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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