Selenium MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions what the tool does (waiting) but not how it behaves—e.g., timeout behavior, error handling, or interaction with browser state. This leaves critical operational details unspecified for a tool with potential side effects.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that interacts with dynamic browser state, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, failure modes, or dependencies on other browser tools, leaving gaps for safe and effective use in automation contexts.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are used for waiting conditions. It doesn't clarify mutual exclusivity or default behaviors, but the schema already covers basics, meeting the baseline.

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 as waiting for text to appear/disappear or for time to pass, which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_click or browser_type by focusing on waiting rather than interaction. However, it doesn't explicitly mention browser context, which could slightly improve clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify scenarios where waiting for text is preferable to waiting for time, or when to use this over other browser tools. Without usage context, the agent must infer appropriate applications.

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