appium.assert_visible

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a non-visible element yields false rather than an exception. However, it omits whether it waits during timeoutMs, what it returns on success, and any failure/error behavior, leaving key traits unexplained.

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 short, front-loaded, and each sentence serves a purpose. It loses one point because 'Returns passed false' is awkwardly phrased and may confuse an agent into thinking a field named 'passed' is returned rather than simply 'false'.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the core assertion behavior and the false-on-failure contract are present. Yet timeout semantics, the success return value, and the role of optional parameters are missing, leaving meaningful gaps in what an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needed to compensate, but it only refers generically to 'a locator'. It adds no meaning for sessionId, serverUrl, timeoutMs, or how locator strategies behave, making it hard for an agent to construct a correct call.

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 first sentence names a concrete operation and target: assert visibility of a locator. The second sentence adds that it returns false instead of throwing, which helps distinguish it from tools like appium.assert_not_visible and appium.wait_for_visible. However, it never explicitly names a sibling or state the alternative condition.

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 word 'Assert' plus the non-throwing return behavior implies this is for a boolean visibility check, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. waiting or negating. In particular, it does not point to appium.wait_for_visible for polling scenarios or appium.assert_not_visible for the inverse check.

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