browser_wait_for_response

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only repeats the basic action and does not disclose behavior such as timeout handling, polling, error conditions, or what happens when the response is not found. This is a significant gap for a wait operation.

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 extremely short, but this under-specification is not effective conciseness. It provides almost no value beyond the tool name and fails to convey essential information about the tool's operation.

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?

With many sibling wait tools and no annotations or output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the tool's role in the browser automation workflow or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent without enough context to use it reliably.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'urlPattern' or 'timeout'. The agent must infer their meanings from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 '等待网络响应' ('Wait for network response') names a verb and resource, so it is not a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'response' (e.g., HTTP response matching a URL pattern) and does not differentiate from the sibling tool browser_wait_for_request.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it differs from the many other wait-for tools (e.g., browser_wait_for_selector, browser_wait_for_request, browser_wait_for_url). The description gives no context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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