browser_wait_human

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 that the tool polls until the widget disappears or a timeout occurs, and it gives the default timeout duration (120s). This is strong behavioral disclosure for a wait-type operation, though it does not state what happens after timeout occurs.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers behavior, default timeout, and a critical user-communication requirement. Every sentence 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?

For a simple wait tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it waits for, how it waits, how long it waits by default, and what the agent must do beforehand. It does not describe timeout return behavior or behavior when no CAPTCHA is present, but those are minor gaps for this tool type.

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 single optional timeout parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate for 0% coverage. The phrase 'timeout (default 120s)' adds meaningful context by implying the parameter controls the wait duration in seconds and indicating a default. However, it does not explicitly explain that the timeout parameter overrides the default or describe acceptable values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wait') and a specific resource ('CAPTCHA / human-verification widget in the browser'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling browser tools because none of the siblings are about waiting for human interaction.

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 clearly states the context in which to use the tool: when a CAPTCHA or human-verification widget must be resolved manually. It also provides an explicit precondition: always tell the user you are waiting before calling. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among the listed siblings.

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