wait_for_request

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool blocks, waits for a timeout, and optionally requires a response. It explains the return JSON format. However, it does not mention that the tool is non-destructive or clarify behavior on timeout, slightly limiting 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 efficient: one sentence for purpose, one for anti-pattern replacement, then a clear list of arguments and return format. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately explains all parameters and the return structure. It could mention timeout behavior on failure, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description fully explains each parameter: 'url_pattern: substring match', 'method: optional HTTP verb filter', 'timeout: max seconds to wait', and 'require_response: also wait for the response phase (default True)'. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 'Block until a network request matching url_pattern is observed', using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions replacing an anti-pattern, adding context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'wait_for_response' which may wait for any response.

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 says it 'Replaces the setTimeout(2000)+poll anti-pattern', giving usage context, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to similar sibling tools like 'wait_for_navigation' or 'wait_for_url'. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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