browser_wait_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the conditions waited for but does not disclose behavior on timeout, whether it blocks execution, or what happens on failure. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, and the conditions are clearly listed in parentheses.

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 lack of output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide a complete picture. It fails to explain the 'id' and 'timeout_ms' parameters, the return value, error behavior, or whether multiple conditions can be combined. The tool is under-documented for effective use by an AI agent.

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 add meaning. It links three conditions (selector, text, networkidle) to their roles, but does not explain the 'id' parameter (likely identifying a browser tab) or 'timeout_ms' (default behavior). It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Wait until a condition holds') and lists the specific conditions it handles (selector visible, text appears, network idle), making it distinct from sibling browser tools like browser_click_ref or browser_navigate.

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 by listing conditions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools suggest a context where waiting is needed before interactions, but no direct guidance is given.

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