assert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It communicates that assertions can wait with a timeout_ms parameter, but doesn't disclose the failure behavior (exception thrown vs. return value), whether failures abort the session, or what passing/failing outcomes look like. For a test-assertion tool, this behavioral detail is a meaningful gap.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with actionable guidance on the check parameter. No wasted words, though the enumeration of eight check types could arguably live entirely in the schema enum and still be accessible to the agent.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the check-type usage pattern but omits the return value/outcome behavior entirely. Given there are 28 sibling tools and no annotations, the description should clarify what happens on success vs. failure, which is central to using an assertion tool correctly in an automation loop.

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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description additionally clarifies the relationship between 'check' and 'expected' (which check types require which expected value types), which adds value beyond the schema. This is slightly above the baseline 3.

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 'Runs an assertion check on a widget' with a specific verb+resource. It lists the eight assertion types, distinguishing the tool's capabilities among the sibling actions (tap, enter_text, etc.). It's clear but doesn't strongly differentiate from the general verification tools like get_text or get_widget_tree, which could serve verification purposes too, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool ('Use 'check' to specify the type') and enumerates the valid check types. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_text for reading values vs. asserting them), so it stops short of a 5.

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