assert_text

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden. It discloses key behavior (raises if absent), which is essential for a mutation-like assertion. However, it doesn't mention return value or side effects, though for an assertion tool this may be 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?

Single sentence, clear and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 1-param assertion tool with output schema present (though not shown), the description is largely complete. It covers the core behavior, though it could mention the return type or success behavior.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description adds meaning by stating 'element containing text', but lacks details like case sensitivity, exact match vs substring, or whitespace handling. Partially compensates but not fully.

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 clearly states the verb (assert), resource (element containing text on screen), and behavior (raises if absent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tap_text and wait_for_text by focusing solely on presence check.

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?

Description implies the tool is for checking presence, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like wait_for_text. No when-not or prerequisites mentioned.

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