wait_for_idle

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

The description explains the core waiting condition (no DOM mutations) but does not disclose what happens when the timeout is reached, whether the tool polls or passively listens, or how success/failure is signaled. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but leaves these behaviors unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and core condition.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It captures the essential behavior well, though the missing timeout semantics are a notable gap for a complete understanding.

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?

The description clarifies the meaning of quiet_ms by tying it to the idle condition. However, the timeout parameter is not explained at all, and the schema provides no descriptions either, leaving its unit and behavior ambiguous for a 0% schema coverage case.

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 states a specific action: wait until the page has been quiet (no DOM mutations) for quiet_ms. This clearly identifies the resource (the page) and the condition, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wait_until_ready.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to wait for the page to stop mutating before proceeding. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is obvious from the phrasing.

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