assert_response

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: it operates on implicit prior state ("the last HTTP response", implying execute_api_request must have run) and it is aggregate rather than fail-fast ("Reports every check that failed"). It says nothing about what a passing result returns, how missing prior state is handled, or any permission/rate constraints.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the operator vocabulary, then the sequencing constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 an assertion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input surface adequately but leaves the result contract thin: "reports every check that failed" does not describe the shape of a success response or how failures are reported structurally. Parameter coverage of 40% also leaves gaps the description only partly fills.

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 low at 40%, so the description must compensate. It does name four of the five parameters (status, jsonPathExists, maxDurationMs, checks) and the check operators, which helps, but it adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents for `checks`, and it omits `workspaceRoot` entirely.

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?

States a specific verb (assert) against a specific resource (the last HTTP response) and enumerates the assertable facets: status, jsonPathExists, maxDurationMs, and value checks. It is distinguishable from execute_api_request, but it does not differentiate itself from the related verification siblings such as run_vander_checks, plan_vander_checks, or run_eval.

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?

"Run after execute_api_request" gives explicit sequencing context that an agent needs, which is more than most assertions tools provide. However, it names no exclusions or alternatives (e.g. when to prefer run_vander_checks/plan_vander_checks over this raw assertion), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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