assert_element_visible

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does disclose an important behavioral trait: it returns success/fail rather than throwing. It also indicates both existence and visibility are required. It could add detail on waiting/retry behavior, but for a simple assertion this is meaningful transparency.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core action, and every clause adds value. There is no redundant framing or boilerplate.

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 one-parameter assertion tool, the description is close to sufficient: it states the action and the non-throwing result. It is incomplete only because selector syntax and timing behavior are left unstated, and there are no annotations or output schema to fill those gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the selector parameter's expected format (e.g., CSS selector vs XPath). The only implicit connection is that the element is identified by the 'selector' argument; that is too thin to compensate for the low 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 states a clear verb ('Assert') and resource ('element') with specific criteria: exists and is visible. The phrase 'Returns success/fail (no throw)' clarifies that this is a boolean-style assertion, which separates it from element inspection/retrieval tools like inspect_element or query_selector_all.

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 assertion phrasing makes its intended use obvious: verify an element is both present and visible. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions such as assert_clickable or assert_text_present, so it misses full when-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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