verify.assert_appium_session_healthy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It mentions that it asserts reachability and distinguishes failure types, but does not specify what happens on failure (e.g., throws an error, returns a boolean), what it does with the page source, or any side effects. The absence of output schema adds to the need for more disclose, which is not met.

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 that is concise and front-loads the action ('Assert') and the resource. It includes the key purpose (distinguishing failures) without fluff. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 low schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to know what to expect as a result (e.g., assertion result, exception behavior) or why serverUrl is needed. It should mention typical failure outcomes or how it complements other verification steps, but it does not.

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. It does not explain the purpose of serverUrl or sessionId beyond what the schema names imply. Since only sessionId is required, the description could clarify that serverUrl is optional and likely defaults to a known server, but that is absent. This is a gap, so a 3 is generous but not entirely unhelpful.

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 states a specific verb ('Assert') and a clear resource ('Appium session and page source'), and adds the purpose of distinguishing automation failures from app crashes. It is clear and distinct from siblings like appium.get_page_source or verify.assert_no_crash_in_logcat, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies usage in a verification context (checking session health) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like appium.get_page_source or verify.assert_no_crash_in_logcat. It provides a hint at its role but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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