browser_verify_element_visible

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions return value format but does not explain what happens on failure (e.g., element not found, not visible) or if there are any side effects. The term 'assert' is ambiguous—does it throw or return an error? Lacks critical behavioral details.

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 sentence that efficiently states purpose and return value. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded. However, the return format is slightly vague ('{ok, ...}'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 the lack of schema descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, error handling, or usage context. For a tool with many siblings, it fails to provide sufficient information for correct selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'element (by ref)' but does not clarify what 'ref' means (e.g., CSS selector, XPath, or internal reference). The optional 'session_id' is not explained at all. Fails to add meaning 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 asserts visibility of an element by reference. It is specific with a verb and resource, and the name distinguishes it from siblings like 'browser_verify_element_hidden'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, missing the top score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., need for a valid session or element ref) or when not to use it. This significantly hinders an agent's ability to decide correctly.

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