browser_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the three waiting modes but does not explain how modes are selected (e.g., interaction of parameters), timeout behavior, error handling, or return value. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 concise sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the verb and covering all primary behaviors. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain optional parameter behavior, default wait times, mode conflict resolution, or what happens if no condition is met. This leaves substantial ambiguity for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by linking parameters to modes: text for appearance, textGone for disappearance, time for time-based wait. This clarifies the intended semantics beyond individual parameter descriptions and helps infer parameter relationships.

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' and clearly states the resource and three modes: text appearance, text disappearance, and time passage. It distinguishes itself from sibling browser tools by describing a unique waiting functionality not covered by others.

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 implies usage scenarios (when you need to wait for text or time), but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Since it's the only wait-related tool among siblings, the implied usage is somewhat clear, but there is no direct comparison or 'when not to use' guidance.

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