browser_wait_for_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (monitors real network traffic via Chrome DevTools Protocol) but leaves important behavior unclear: whether it waits for a single matching request or network idle, whether already in-flight requests count, and what happens on timeout or no match.

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 tight sentences: the core behavior, the typical use case, and the underlying mechanism. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two-parameter wait tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states the use case, the mechanism, and the matching concept implied by url_pattern. The remaining gaps around timeout/return behavior are real but minor, especially since the schema already defines a timeout.

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%, with timeout and url_pattern already documented. The description adds contextual motivation but no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation — waiting for a network request to complete — and places it in a concrete scenario: after clicking buttons that trigger API calls, so data is loaded before reading the page. The 'network request' qualifier and CDP monitoring distinguish it from the generic sibling browser_wait even without naming it.

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 says when to use the tool: after click actions that trigger API calls, before reading page content. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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