assert_node_state

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the assertion action. It does not state what happens on failure (e.g., error thrown, boolean returned, logging), nor does it disclose any side effects or safety implications. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet.

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, clear sentence. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing 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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits critical information about return values, failure behavior, and how the assertion integrates with the game loop. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool confidently.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions. For example, 'path' is described as 'Node path in the running game' but does not clarify format (absolute vs relative), and 'expected' is simply 'Expected value' without type constraints.

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 purpose: asserting that a node property matches an expected value. It uses a specific verb ('assert') and resource ('node property'), which is good. However, it does not differentiate from sibling assertion tools like 'assert_game_state' or 'assert_screen_text', leaving ambiguity about when to use which.

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, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The description is silent on usage context.

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