Wait for browser condition

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, so the description's burden is lower, but it still adds valuable non-obvious behavioral details: the wait occupies the session queue, is bounded by timeoutMs, and must not depend on future queued actions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense, information-rich sentence with a clear colon-delimited list of condition types. Every clause adds meaningful guidance: scope, condition kinds, queue behavior, timeout, and the alternative tool. No filler or redundancy.

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 complex tool with four parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description is remarkably complete: it defines the wait domain, frame targeting, condition taxonomy, timeout semantics, queue restrictions, and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema covers return details, so no further explanation is needed.

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 carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of condition categories, timeoutMs, 'safe-glob', iframe chains, and text case-sensitivity, going well beyond raw schema. It does not exhaustively narrate every nested locator strategy, but the schema enums cover those details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wait') and enumerates the exact supported condition types: exact/safe-glob URL, load states, locator state with optional iframe chain, and text presence/absence. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_action_and_wait by clarifying this is for deterministic passive conditions only.

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?

Explicitly states when to use versus when not to use: 'must not depend on a later action queued in the same session; use browser_action_and_wait for action-triggered events.' It also mentions the session queue and timeout binding, giving clear operational context.

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