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 disclosure burden. It never states whether the wait is blocking, what happens when the timeout expires (error vs. returning a negative result), or whether the call is read-only and side-effect free — all critical for an agent deciding to spend up to BROWSER_TIMEOUT milliseconds on it.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint immediately after. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 five-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is only marginally sufficient. An agent still cannot predict the failure mode on timeout or what a successful wait returns, which are the two facts most likely to change how it is invoked.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does partly: 'aparecer, desaparecer' maps meaningfully onto the visible/hidden/detached states and 'elemento/texto' distinguishes the selector and text parameters. But the required task_description parameter and its [AGENT-BROWSER-TASK] convention, plus timeout behavior, are left entirely to the 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 names a specific verb (aguarda/waits) and the exact conditions it waits on: an element appearing, disappearing, or text showing up. That is clearly distinct from siblings like browser_click or browser_read_page, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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 clause 'Útil após ações que disparam carregamentos assíncronos' gives a genuine when-to-use context, which is more than nothing. However, it offers no exclusions (e.g., when to prefer browser_read_page) and no guidance on choosing between the text, selector, and state parameters for a given wait scenario.

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