browser_wait_for_network_idle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully defines the idle condition as 'no active in-flight requests' sustained for the duration, but it omits the key behavioral fact for a wait tool: what happens when the timeout is reached (error, silent return, boolean result) and whether it blocks the caller.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core condition (network idle) leads and the qualifying definition follows.

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?

For a simple two-parameter wait tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the wait condition but not the timeout outcome or return value, leaving an agent unsure how to detect success. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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%, so both 'timeout' and 'idle_time' are already fully documented in the schema; description adds no syntax or units beyond 'specified duration'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Wait') and a specific condition ('network is completely idle'), and the parenthetical defines what idle means (no active in-flight requests). No sibling tool performs a wait-for-condition, so no differentiation is needed and an agent can select this unambiguously.

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 says nothing about when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after browser_navigate or browser_click, before browser_screenshot), nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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