net_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that the tool polls, waits at most timeoutMs, and matches only the first eligible request, but it does not disclose what happens on timeout or when no request matches—e.g., whether it throws, returns null, or returns partial data.

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, both purposeful: the first states the core behavior and default timeout, the second gives the motivating use case. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify the result shape and timeout failure mode. It explains the waiting semantics well, but an agent cannot fully predict what the tool returns on success or does on timeout/no-match, which is essential for driving deterministic flows.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameter semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to method, status, sessionId, includeExisting, or requireFinished, and only restates the timeout default already present in 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 conveys a specific action—poll captured network requests and resolve on the first match up to a timeout. It clearly states the verb, resource, and matching behavior, and implies a distinction from listing tools like net_list, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use this instead of a fixed sleep to make driving deterministic, waiting for the actual request rather than guessing timing. It does not mention when not to use it or compare it to page_wait_for or net_pending, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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