browser_wait_for_selector

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining polling behavior, timeout defaults, what happens on timeout, or that the state parameter can wait for detachment/hidden states. The word 'appear' is also misleading for non-visible states.

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 or redundant wording. It is efficient, though somewhat under-specified for the tool's complexity; still, it is appropriately concise.

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 wait tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return behavior, timeout semantics, or how the state parameter changes the waiting condition, leaving critical context for the agent to infer or discover through trial and error.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only loosely connecting 'appear' to the state property without clarifying how selector, timeout, or sessionId are used.

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 for' with resource 'an element', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling browser_wait_for_navigation. However, 'appear' is narrower than the full state options (visible, hidden, attached, detached) exposed in the schema, so it does not fully capture all possible conditions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_wait_for_navigation or other polling strategies. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given; the intended usage is only implied by the name and generic description.

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