Wait for something

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which the description does not contradict. It adds the context of 'page settling' and names the types of waits, but it does not disclose timeout behavior, what happens on failure, or side effects beyond the read-only nature already captured by 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a practical usage tip. No redundant terminology, every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The description covers all major wait modes and gives a concrete use case, which is sufficient for selecting the tool. It omits behavior on timeout (e.g., whether it throws or returns early) and does not describe the return value, but those are secondary given the schema's rich parameter explanations and the blocking nature implied by the name.

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 75%, leaving state and timeout without textual descriptions. The main description summarizes the parameter categories (text, element, load state, delay) but does not map them directly to individual schema properties or explain nuanced fields like the nested target object. It adds some grouping value but relies heavily on 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 states a specific verb 'wait' and lists four distinct waitable resources (text, element, load state, fixed delay). It also explicitly differentiates from retrying a failed click, making it distinct from browser_click and similar browser tools.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to use this tool instead of retrying a failed click when a page is settling, offering a clear alternative scenario. However, it does not compare with other waiting tools like browser_await_human or list any exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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