browser_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'wait for a period or element appear' and does not mention the 'disappear' mode, the timeout behavior (e.g., throwing on timeout), or whether it blocks execution. This is a significant gap for a tool with four parameters.

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?

A single, concise sentence that clearly front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words; it is 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?

For a simple wait tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits critical context like what happens when a timeout occurs, how the disappear parameter affects behavior, and whether it returns any value. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these gaps make it incomplete.

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 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at the ms/selector split but not explaining timeout or disappear. It does not compensate for the missing behavioral details.

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 function: wait for a duration or for an element to appear. It uses a specific verb (wait) and resource (time/element), and it stands apart from all sibling tools since none other handles waiting. The mention of 'element appear' covers the primary mode, though it omits the disappear option, which is minor.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but there are no direct alternatives among siblings. It is implied that this is the tool for any waiting need. However, it does not mention prerequisites or typical scenarios like waiting for navigation or AJAX completion, so the guidance is basic.

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