Wait For Condition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the blocking/wait nature and the 10-second default timeout, but does not say what happens when a condition is never met — whether it errors, returns false, or aborts the session. That timeout-failure behavior is exactly what an agent needs to handle the tool safely.

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 sentences plus a compact example list. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each example illustrates a distinct wait mode rather than padding. The timeout note closes with a useful default.

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 seven-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, context, and examples well. It omits timeout-failure semantics and session/return expectations, which is a meaningful but not crippling gap.

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 all seven parameters (mode, text, timeout, visible, selector, textGone, sessionId) are already documented. The description implicitly maps its three condition types to selector/text/textGone, adding marginal conceptual value but no syntax, format, or precedence details beyond 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 states a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('condition'), then enumerates the three concrete condition types: element appearing, text becoming visible, text disappearing. An agent can distinguish this from sibling action tools like browser_click or browser_navigate without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear triggering contexts (dynamic content, AJAX loading, animations, async page updates) and three worked examples. However, it offers no explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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