verify.assert_screen_contains_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the assertion but does not explain what happens on failure (e.g., does it throw an error or return a boolean?), whether it waits for the text, or the role of the sessionId parameter. It lacks details on response format or 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, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It is efficient in length but lacks substantive information, so it does not earn a higher score for structure since conciseness without content is not valuable.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, failure behavior, or when to use this tool versus similar assertions. An agent would need to infer too much to call it correctly.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema defines text, sessionId, and serverUrl, but the description provides no clarification on what serverUrl is for or how sessionId is used. It adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb ('assert') and resource ('current Appium page source') with a condition ('contains expected text'). It distinguishes from siblings like appium.get_page_source (which returns source) and other assert tools (assert_visible checks visibility, not source presence).

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 for verifying text presence in page source, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like appium.assert_visible (which checks visibility) or appium.get_page_source (which retrieves source). No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving selection to inference.

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