wait_for_network_idle

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious detail: requests are counted from page open, so pre-existing in-flight requests do not count toward the idle check. It stops short of describing timeout failure behavior or return value, but the core waiting semantics are transparent.

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?

Two focused sentences, with the essential behavior in the first and a valuable edge-case clarification in the second. No filler.

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 two-parameter wait tool with no output schema, the description covers the main mechanism and a key counting detail. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained timeout_ms behavior, but the parameter name and default make it inferable.

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 only 50%. The description contextualizes idle_ms ('for idle_ms continuously') but adds little beyond the schema's own description, and timeout_ms is never mentioned or explained in either the schema or the description. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate more.

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 precise verb and resource: it waits for a network condition (no in-flight requests for a continuous idle window). It also adds the page-open counting nuance, which clearly separates it from generic wait_for or wait_for_navigation.

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 intended use is implied—call it when you need the network to settle before proceeding—but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over sibling wait_for, wait_for_navigation, or wait_for_response tools, nor what situations it is not suited for.

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