browser_verify_text_visible

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what happens if the text is not visible (error vs false), scope (entire page or viewport), or details like case sensitivity, whitespace handling, or whether it works for partial text matches.

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 with no redundant words. It is concise, but the extreme brevity may sacrifice necessary detail. Structure is adequate for a simple tool.

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 (one required param, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It conveys the core function but lacks details on behavior (e.g., error handling, visibility criteria) that would help an agent use it correctly. No output schema shifts burden to description.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'text' is described as 'Text to verify is visible' in both schema and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Verify text is visible on the page' clearly states the action (verify) and the resource (text visibility). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_verify_element_visible (element by selector) and browser_verify_value (input value), though it could explicitly mention 'given a text string' for precision.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., browser_verify_element_visible for element presence, browser_verify_value for input values). There is no mention of context or exclusions.

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