browser_verify_list_visible

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool verifies visibility, but omits details such as whether it scrolls into view, how partial visibility is handled, or error behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects.

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 sentence of 10 words, which is very concise. While it could be more informative, it is appropriately sized for a straightforward verification tool and does not contain extraneous text.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify success/failure conditions or typical behavior. The current text provides only the basic action, leaving gaps for an agent to understand what 'verify' entails in terms of return value or state changes.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it merely restates the purpose of the parameters implicitly.

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 verb 'Verify' and the resource 'a list with specific items is visible on the page'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_verify_element_visible and browser_verify_text_visible, which target single elements or text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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