browser_wait

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the five wait modes and that conditions are combinable, which is genuine behavioral information. But it never states the semantics of combination (AND vs OR), what happens when the wait times out, or whether the call fails or returns silently — the most important behavioral facts for a waiting tool.

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 compact line with a colon and slash-separated enumeration — the condition list is front-loaded and scannable, and no sentence is wasted. The density is appropriate for the amount of information conveyed.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers the modes but leaves invocation-relevant gaps: combination semantics, timeout/failure behavior, and what the call yields on success or failure. An agent could still call it, but would be guessing on important edge behavior.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the description meaningfully compensates: it explains the two undocumented parameters timeMs (fixed-duration wait) and selector (wait for element to appear), and clarifies text and url as well. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it omits timeoutMs entirely, leaving the interaction between a per-condition timeout and the global timeout unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb (等待 / wait) and enumerates the exact conditions supported: timeMs duration, text appearance, selector appearance, URL change, network idle. That enumeration lets an agent tell it apart from sibling action tools (browser_click, browser_navigate) without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting it with an alternative, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

'可组合' (can be combined) hints that multiple conditions can be supplied together, which is light usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over a sibling (e.g., instead of polling with browser_snapshot, or how it interacts with the preceding navigate/click call) and no when-not guidance.

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