verify.assert_accessibility_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the core assertion condition but fails to mention side effects, failure behavior (e.g., throws exception vs. returns boolean), whether it's read-only, or how it determines 'clickable or input-like nodes'. This lack of transparency prevents an agent from anticipating the tool's runtime impact.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, using the verb 'Assert' immediately. Its brevity is a strength, though it sacrifices detail needed for other dimensions.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is inadequate for correct invocation. The agent needs to know the format and purpose of each parameter, the return value (or failure mode), and whether an Appium session is required. The tool is non-trivial (requires server, session, and source pointers), yet the description provides no integration context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides zero information about serverUrl, sessionId, or sourcePath. The parameter names alone give minimal hints, but the meaning of sourcePath and the relationship between these parameters and the assertion logic are entirely unaddressed. The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: asserting that clickable or input-like nodes have an accessibility attribute (text, label, name, content-desc, or resource-id). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it's distinguishable from sibling verify tools (e.g., assert_screen_contains_text, assert_sqlite_query) without needing to inspect schemas. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast scopes, so it stops just short of a perfect score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other verification tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an active Appium session, how sourcePath is obtained, or what type of source (layout dump, accessibility tree) is expected. An agent must rely on the tool name and sibling context to infer usage, which is insufficient.

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