assert_at_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states nothing about what happens on a failed assertion (raise an error? return a boolean? abort the session?) or about success output, which is the single most important behavior for an assert tool. The "buffer mode only" caveat is the only behavioral detail offered.

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?

A single tight sentence with the assertion condition front-loaded and the mode restriction last. No filler, though the em-dash clause is doing a lot of unelaborated work.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description does state the mode restriction. However, for a zero-annotation, zero-schema-coverage assertion tool it leaves the failure behavior, coordinate conventions, and session parameter unexplained, so it is only minimally viable.

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 compensate. It names `text` and implies row/col, but gives no coordinate semantics (0-based vs 1-based, screen vs buffer origin) and never mentions `session_id` at all. Three of four parameters are only implicitly acknowledged.

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 names a specific verb (assert) and the exact condition tested (`text` at (row, col)), which cleanly separates it from the weaker sibling assert_contains and from expect_text. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it's clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

"buffer mode only" is a real usage constraint — it tells the agent this tool is not for screen-scraping assertions — but it is stated as a restriction without naming the alternative (e.g. expect_text / capture_screen) or explaining when buffer mode is the right choice. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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