page_verify_element_visible

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the verification action, but does not disclose what happens if the element is not visible (e.g., throws error or returns false), or if the element is not found. No mention of authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, it could be more comprehensive by including usage hints or behavioral details without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema, so the description should explain return values or error behavior. It lacks this information entirely. For a medium-complexity tool (3 params, 2 required), the description is incomplete for correct agent invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context by relating the parameters (role and accessibleName) to the verification action, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema (e.g., format constraints or examples).

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'element visibility', specifying that it targets elements by ARIA role and accessible name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_verify_text_visible (text content) and page_verify_value (value).

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 ARIA role and accessible name verification, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like page_verify_text_visible. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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