wait_for_network_idle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: Network events from OTHER attached tabs also enter the global buffer and, if not filtered, can keep pushing the idle window open indefinitely. It also clarifies the scope is only active_tab_id events. This is genuinely valuable operational context. It doesn't mention failures (what happens on timeout) or return value, though.

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 compact sentences with an example prefix, highly front-loaded. No filler. The second sentence is technically dense but earns its place by disclosing a critical edge case. Slightly dense for non-native readers but efficient overall.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, it covers the key operational concerns: scope (active tab), semantics (idle time), and the cross-tab pitfall. However, it omits the timeout behavior (what happens if timeout expires before idle — error? returns early?), which an agent will need to know. Also doesn't clarify whether it's a network call-triggering operation (needs network_enable). For a tool sitting among 40 siblings, this could be richer, but it's adequate for the simplicity level.

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 0%, so description must compensate for parameters. The example call 'wait_for_network_idle(0.5, 15)' effectively implies idle_time=0.5s and timeout=15s (order of positional args), giving the agent intuitive understanding of both parameters' meanings and units without needing to read the schema. This is strong compensation for the zero coverage.

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 states the verb+resource clearly: wait for Network requests to be idle for a specified time in the active tab. It provides a concrete usage example and the core mechanism. However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like wait_for_load, sleep, or drain_events — the closest behavioral sibling (drain_events, wait_for_load) isn't named, so some differentiation is missing.

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 explains WHEN it's appropriate (after navigation/network activity to let requests settle) implicitly through the idle semantics, and importantly warns about background tabs that poll/SSE keeping idle window perpetual. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like sleep or wait_for_load, nor when NOT to use it (e.g., for navigation completion use wait_for_load).

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