Wait for specified text to appear or disappear on a webpage, or wait a set number of seconds, to sync browser automation with page state for reliable testing and scraping.
Wait for condition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Text to wait for to appear | |
| time | No | Time to wait in seconds | |
| textGone | No | Text to wait for to disappear |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'Wait for condition' discloses nothing: no blocking semantics, no timeout behavior, no error handling when the condition is never met, and no polling explanation. An agent cannot predict what happens when time and text are combined or when no parameters are supplied.
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 words is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence fragment does not earn its place because it conveys no actionable information beyond what the tool name already implies.
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 tool with three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify behavior with no arguments, how time interacts with text/textGone, and timeout/failure semantics. All of this is absent, leaving a browser automation agent unable to call the tool reliably or interpret its result.
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%, so each parameter is individually documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 'Wait for condition' is nearly a restatement of the tool name and adds no specificity about what conditions are supported. The schema reveals three distinct condition types (text appearance, text disappearance, fixed time), but the description leaves all of that implicit. It sits just above a pure tautology because it introduces the vague notion of a 'condition'.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_snapshot (for manual polling) or browser_evaluate (for custom wait logic). There is no mention of expected context, exclusions, or conditions under which a sibling tool would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.