assert

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 discloses that the tool 'returns pass/fail with details,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, how it behaves on failure (e.g., if it throws or just returns), or any side effects. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every word earns its place. No fluff or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the return format ('pass/fail with details') even though there is no output schema. It could mention usage relative to get_page_state or waiting behavior, but these are not essential for an assert tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's descriptions are clear, but the tool description itself offers no added semantic value for parameters.

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: 'Assert a condition about the current page state.' It uses a specific verb (assert) and resource (current page state), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_page_state by mentioning it returns pass/fail and is for verifying test expectations.

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 provides clear usage context: 'use this to verify test expectations.' It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, but this guidance is sufficient for an assertion tool in a test automation context.

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