browser_wait_for_network_idle

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the 500ms idle threshold requirement. It clarifies that it waits for a stable idle state, which is useful context. Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive nature, so the bar is lower, and this description adds value.

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, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does. No redundancy or extraneous information.

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, single-parameter wait tool with read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient detail: the trigger condition and the stability threshold. No output schema is needed, and the absence of extra behavior is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% — the timeout parameter is fully described in the schema with its default and unit. The description adds no extra parametric detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'waits' and clearly identifies the resource and condition: network idle state for at least 500ms. This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_wait_for (which likely waits for other conditions) and browser_network_requests (which lists requests).

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 implies usage: use this when you need to wait for network activity to settle. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling tool names.

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