wait_until_ready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it warns that readiness does not confirm task success and does not rule out a captcha, which sets correct agent expectations about false positives. It omits what happens on timeout (error vs. partial result), which is the main remaining behavioral unknown.

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?

Three short sentences, the skip condition is front-loaded before the caveats, and nothing is padding. The only waste is the mode-name mismatch, which costs clarity rather than length.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, and the caveats cover the main conceptual trap. But for a two-parameter timing tool, the absence of any timeout semantics (unit behavior on expiry, whether it throws) and the mode/enum mismatch leave real gaps.

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 explain both parameters. It gestures at 'mode' but with terminology (hybrid/vision) that does not match the enum values browser/desktop, and it says nothing at all about timeout_seconds (default 10, presumably a maximum wait). The parameter guidance is actively confusing rather than merely absent.

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?

Names a specific action (wait for readiness) and distinguishes two operating contexts, and explicitly separates itself from browser_open by referencing that tool's ready=true return. However, it uses 'hybrid mode' and 'vision mode' while the schema enum is browser/desktop, so the agent must guess the mapping.

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?

Gives an explicit skip condition ('Skip this call when browser_open returned ready=true') which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance that prevents redundant calls. It does not, however, say when vision/desktop mode should be preferred over browser mode.

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