assert_screen_text

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions OCR or UI element check but doesn't explain how the mechanism is chosen, whether it's read-only, or what happens on assertion failure (error vs false return). Lacks important 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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loads core purpose. Could be improved by including brief usage hint without becoming verbose, but remains effective.

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?

For a simple assertion tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. Missing details about return behavior and mechanism selection, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive context.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds limited value by clarifying the assertion is about screen text and uses OCR/UI. However, it doesn't add constraints like case sensitivity or partial match behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description uses clear verb+resource: 'Assert that specific text appears on screen'. It distinguishes from sibling assert tools (e.g., assert_visual_match) by specifying text-based assertion. The mention of OCR and UI element check further clarifies the method.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like assert_visual_match or assert_node_state. No context on prerequisites (e.g., screen must be visible) or when OCR is preferred over UI element checking.

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