cdp_wait_response

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the body is truncated and that method/status are optional filters, but does not explain timeout behavior, what happens on no match, or whether the response is consumed or left in the network log. Some behavioral traits are provided but significant gaps remain.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, includes key filtering options, and notes the truncated body. Every part adds value with no 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?

This is a moderately complex async tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation. The description does not cover timeout semantics, error conditions, or whether the response is removed from the network log, making it incomplete for safe autonomous use.

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 only 20% (only session_id). The description adds meaning for url_contains, method, and status, but entirely omits the timeout parameter, which has no schema description. This is a critical omission since timeout controls waiting behavior and has a default value that is not self-explanatory.

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 verb ('Wait') and a resource ('a response whose URL contains url_contains'), with optional filters. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like cdp_wait (page load) and cdp_network_log (network logging), and mentions return values.

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 implies usage for waiting on network responses but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the choice to the agent's inference from the tool name and sibling context.

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