is_element_visible

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic function and fails to disclose what the tool returns, how it behaves when the element is not found, whether it waits or is non-destructive, or any error handling. This is a significant gap for a check tool.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core function. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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 or annotations, so the description should explain return values and behavioral nuances. It does neither. For a simple tool, it lacks critical details such as what is returned (e.g., boolean), and the parameter combination rule (at least one required). This makes it less complete than expected.

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?

The schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (text and resourceId), so baseline is 3. The description adds the word 'or', implying one of them is used, but it does not clarify whether both can be provided or how they combine. This adds minimal value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check if an element with specific text or resource-id is visible on screen'. It uses a specific verb ('check') and specifies the resource (element) and the condition (visible). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like wait_for_element (which waits) and assert_screen_contains (which asserts) by focusing on visibility rather than mere existence.

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 when checking visibility, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools. The guidance is only implied through the tool's purpose, not explicitly provided.

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