assert_text_present

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 usefully states the substring behavior and case sensitivity, but it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., whether it throws, returns false, or waits) or whether hidden or off-screen text is included, which are important for an assertion tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and matching behavior, making it highly efficient.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, the absence of any statement about failure behavior or return value, combined with no output schema and no annotations, leaves a notable gap for an assertion tool where failure semantics are central to the caller's control flow.

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 single parameter 'text' is named clearly and the description clarifies that it is the case-sensitive substring being asserted. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates somewhat by explaining the meaning of the parameter through the tool's purpose, though it adds no additional details such as trimming, encoding, or special characters.

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 identifies the action (assert), the target resource (text on the page), and the exact matching semantics (case-sensitive substring, anywhere on page). It distinguishes itself from sibling assertions like assert_element_visible and assert_url_matches by specifying text content rather than element state or URL.

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 when to use it: whenever you need to verify that a specific substring appears anywhere on the current page. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when to prefer sibling tools such as assert_element_visible or find_by_text, leaving the routing decision partly to the agent.

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