browser_verify_element_hidden

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states it returns {ok, ...} but does not explain failure behavior (e.g., assertion fails, throws error) or handling of invalid ref. For a verification tool, more detail is needed.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the essential action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters and return value) without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description lacks details on precise definition of hidden/absent (CSS vs DOM), whether it waits, or any side effects. It is incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description only mentions 'by ref' without explaining what 'ref' means or the optional session_id. It adds minimal semantic value beyond parameter names.

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 it asserts an element is hidden/absent and returns a response. This verb+resource combination is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like browser_verify_element_visible.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it implies checking for hidden/absent elements, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., if you need to check visibility or other attributes). No prerequisites or context provided.

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