wait_for_network_idle

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It reveals the polling mechanism and injection of a fetch/XHR tracker per tab. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like performance impact or infinite polling scenarios.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides value: the first defines the tool, the second adds implementation detail and usage context. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and implementation. However, the lack of parameter explanation leaves a gap in completeness, especially with no schema coverage.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain the parameters. Only 'idle_ms' is mentioned in the description, not its meaning or default, and 'timeout' is completely omitted. The description adds no value over the schema.

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, with specific verb 'wait' and resource 'network idle'. It distinguishes from sibling 'wait_for' by claiming robustness for JS-heavy SPAs.

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?

It explicitly says this is more robust than wait_for(selector) for JS-heavy SPAs, guiding when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond wait_for.

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