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 full burden and does a good job: it defines 'idle' as no active XHR/fetch requests for a quiet period and adds a second condition (readyState === 'complete') that is not obvious from the tool name. It stops short of disclosing the outcome when the timeout is reached, though the timeout parameter's schema description partially covers that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by usage context and a secondary condition. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 low-complexity (no required parameters, no output schema) and the description covers the core wait condition and when it is essential. The only missing element is the explicit return/error behavior on timeout, which the timeout parameter's 'give up' wording only hints at; still, an agent can invoke it correctly without that detail.

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 100% — each of the three parameters has an explicit description in the input schema — so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'quiet period' echoes the idle_time_ms meaning but adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Wait until there are no active XHR/fetch requests for a quiet period,' which clearly distinguishes it from element-based wait tools like wait_for_element. The additional note about document.readyState further pinpoints the exact condition being awaited.

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 identifies the target use case: 'Essential for SPAs and pages that load data asynchronously,' which tells an agent when to invoke this tool after navigation or refresh. It does not name alternative wait tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to route selection.

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