browser_wait_for_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool waits for a network request but does not explain timeout behavior, resolution conditions, return value, or what happens if no matching request occurs. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a wait 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?

The description is a single short phrase, which is technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It offers no value beyond the tool's name and does not earn its place as a meaningful description.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, parameters, or use cases, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively. A minimally complete description would need to cover URL pattern matching semantics and timeout 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?

The input schema has two parameters (urlPattern and timeout) with no descriptions, and the description provides no explanation of either parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly construct the required urlPattern or set an appropriate timeout.

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 '等待网络请求' literally translates to 'wait for network request', which is a direct restatement of the tool name 'browser_wait_for_request' in Chinese. It does not add any new information or differentiate the tool from siblings like browser_wait_for_response or browser_wait_for_url, making it effectively a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusion scenarios, leaving the agent without clear direction on selecting it over other wait-related tools.

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