wait_for_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the key behavior: waits for a complete response (resolved status code). It also explains that url_pattern is a case-insensitive substring and method is an optional filter. However, it does not address the timeout behavior or any potential side effects.

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 relatively concise, with a few sentences that front-load the purpose. It uses code-style formatting for parameter names, which is clear. There is no unnecessary fluff, though it could be more structured with bullet points.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description explains the tool's core behavior and two parameters but omits the timeout parameter and the outcome when no request matches. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall there are notable gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for url_pattern (case-insensitive substring) and method (filters HTTP verb), but it does not mention the timeout parameter. This leaves a gap in parameter understanding.

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 a matching request to complete (response received). It specifies the verb 'wait' and the resource 'matching request', and differentiates from the moment Chrome sends the request. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'wait_for_network', so it does not achieve a 5.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., wait_for_network, wait). It only describes its own behavior without mentioning contexts or exclusions.

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