browser_wait_for

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but omits critical behavioral traits: timeout behavior, what happens on failure, whether the wait is poll-based, how parameters combine, and default behavior when no arguments are provided. The lack of such details means an agent cannot anticipate outcomes reliably.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose in 12 words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has three optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It omits crucial details like timeout handling, default waits, and parameter interaction rules. For an AI agent to invoke this reliably, more context is needed.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'text' implies appearance, 'textGone' implies disappearance, and 'time' implies duration. However, it does not explain units for time, whether parameters are mutually exclusive, what happens if multiple are provided, or the behavior when all are null. This is helpful but incomplete.

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: waiting for text to appear, disappear, or waiting a fixed duration. It uses a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('text'), and the purpose is distinct from siblings like browser_click or browser_navigate. It explicitly covers all three main behaviors.

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 vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing it within browser automation workflows, such as after navigation or before assertions. There is no mention of alternative tools for conditional waits.

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