safari_verify_state

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

No annotations provided, but the description explains why this tool is needed: modern editors maintain state separately from the DOM, so .value or .textContent may show new text while internal store holds old data, causing stale data on Submit. It also describes the return JSON structure. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: purpose+return, problem explanation, usage order, examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes the return JSON structure. It covers the problem, when to use, and provides examples. Sibling tools like safari_fill and safari_click complement this tool, and the workflow is clear.

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% with descriptions for 'selector' and 'expected'. The description adds useful context for 'expected' (framework-level state) but does not provide additional syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Verify the framework-level state of an editor/input matches the expected value.' It specifies a concrete verb ('verify') and resource ('framework-level state'), and distinguishes from siblings like safari_fill by focusing on state verification.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call this AFTER safari_fill and BEFORE clicking Submit on critical forms.' It provides context for when to use (critical forms) and examples (Featured.com, LinkedIn share, Medium, Reddit), differentiating from DOM-based checks.

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