Poll Until Page Conditions Match

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds sensitivity about repeated raw capture of text, values, etc. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, preconditions, next step, and sensitivity. No wasted words, each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, condition variants) and 0% schema coverage, the description lacks details on match modes, snapshot fields, and condition syntax. An output schema exists but is not shown; description needs to compensate more.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions timeout, interval, and acknowledgeRawCapture but does not explain match, snapshot sub-properties, or condition details. The high-level hints are insufficient for a complex input 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: polling until conditions match for asynchronous DOM, URL, element value, or auth signals. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_snapshot (single snapshot) or browser_wait (fixed wait).

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?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('use when asynchronous...'), lists preconditions (active page, acknowledgeRawCapture: true, bounded timeout/interval), and suggests next steps. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides sufficient context.

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