assert

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

Given no annotations, the description adequately discloses the key behavioral trait: failing the sequence if the condition is false (isError, executor stops). It does not mention side effects or authorization needs, but for a simple assertion tool this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, behavior, and usage hint without any redundant information.

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 description covers the main purpose and failure behavior, but does not mention return values (likely void) or what happens on success (sequence continues). Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is fairly complete.

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 100%, and the description adds valuable context by mentioning template usage for left/right and noting that right is unused for exists/notExists operators, enhancing understanding 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 a condition as a sequence step, with a specific verb-resource combination. It also explains the failure behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'execution' or 'request' that serve different purposes.

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 explicitly recommends using with {{var:name.path}} templates to check values from prior request steps, providing clear context for appropriate use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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