assert_element_visible

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies the verification criteria, the alternative identification methods, and the return type. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or details about waiting/polling behavior beyond the timeout parameter.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short lines. It front-loads the purpose with an emoji and provides all key information without any unnecessary words.

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 has 3 parameters and a mentioned return type (ok(rect) or err(timeout)), the description is fairly complete. It covers identification methods, visibility criteria, and the timeout parameter. Some implicit context (e.g., works on current page) is assumed but not critical.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that selector and text are alternative identifiers and that text uses fuzzy contains match, adding meaning beyond the schema. The timeout parameter is mentioned with its default, though the default is already in the schema.

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 verifies element visibility with specific criteria (rendered, non-zero size, not hidden). It also explains two identification methods (selector or text with fuzzy match), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'check' or 'inspect_element'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'assert_text_present' or 'assert_url_matches'. The usage is implied through the return type (ok(rect) or err(timeout)), but no direct guidance is provided.

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