computer.verify

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: the breadth of verifiable items, structured output per assertion, and the restriction to files in allowed directories. It does not mention read-only status or error handling, but the core behavior is adequately outlined.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then concisely states the output format. It contains no unnecessary information and is easy to parse.

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?

The tool's schema is complex (many assertion properties, multiple parameters) and there is no output schema, yet the description remains minimal. It does not explain how to construct assertions, what CDP URL or expectedFingerprint refer to, or any prerequisites or side effects. Significant gaps remain for effective tool usage.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for detailed parameter understanding. It only mentions high-level object types (windows, elements, CDP URLs, files) but does not explain the assertion structure, maxNodes, or expectedFingerprint parameters. This is insufficient given the schema's complexity.

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: verifying windows, elements, CDP URLs, or files in allowed directories, and returning expected/actual/passed for each assertion. It uses a specific verb with a defined scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'inspect' or 'state'.

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 the tool's usage for verification tasks but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like 'computer.inspect' or 'computer.state'. There is no 'use this instead' guidance or exclusion conditions, offering only implicit context.

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