zen_wait_for_network_idle

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It only states the wait condition but does not explain how 'network resources' are defined, whether it awaits all or specific types, side effects, or what triggers completion. Minimal transparency.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be expanded with minimal additional context without becoming verbose.

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?

The description, combined with schema and no output schema, leaves many gaps: no return value, error conditions, or practical usage hints. For a 3-parameter tool, more context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but only mentions idle_ms implicitly. Parameters timeout and tab_id are not described, and idle_ms is only referenced in the description without clarifying its role in the wait condition.

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 the tool waits for network idle based on a threshold of no new network resources. It distinguishes from other wait tools like zen_wait_for_element (DOM) and zen_wait_for_url (URL). The verb 'wait' and resource 'network idle' are specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as zen_capture_network or other wait tools. No context about prerequisites (e.g., after navigation) or typical scenarios.

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