MCP-Midscene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'polls the condition using AI', which hints at a monitoring action, but lacks details on polling frequency, timeout behavior, success/failure criteria, or whether it modifies page state. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves waiting or validation.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that directly explain the tool's function without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose and method, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (AI-based polling for page conditions) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but omits behavioral details like response format, error handling, or interaction with other tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'assertion' documented as 'Condition to monitor on the page, described in natural language.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('asserts', 'polls') and resource ('on the page'), distinguishing it from siblings like midscene_aiHover or midscene_aiTap by focusing on condition verification rather than interaction. It specifies that the condition is described in natural language and uses AI for polling.

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 implies usage for verifying page conditions via AI polling, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like midscene_aiWaitFor or midscene_screenshot. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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