wait_for_network_idle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. The description adds that it applies to the active tab unless a browserId is given, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavior on timeout or if network never settles, leaving some uncertainty.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 tool's simple nature, comprehensive schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about the outcome (e.g., returns nothing), but it is still complete enough for an agent.

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 100% description coverage, with parameters clearly described (timeoutMs with default, browserId as optional). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool waits for network activity to settle, with a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('network activity'). It also provides a use case ('after navigation or SPA actions'). Among siblings like wait_for_element and navigate_tab, this tool is distinct.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool, such as after navigation or SPA actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the usage guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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