assert_text

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

Description states 'visible element text' but does not explain whether it waits for visibility, how trim affects comparison, case sensitivity, error behavior on mismatch, or the return value. With no annotations, these gaps are critical.

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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks structure; it does not separate primary action from parameter details. While front-loaded with the verb, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 5 parameters (including nested selector), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot infer how to construct the selector, what 'trim' does, timeout behavior, or the assertion result.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only indirectly mentions 'mode' via the three operations, but omits 'selector', 'expected', 'trim', and 'timeoutMs' entirely, providing no meaningful semantic value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool asserts visible element text with three comparison modes (equals, contains, matches), distinguishing it from siblings like assert_attribute (asserts attribute) and get_text (retrieves without assertion).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to choose 'equals' over 'contains' or when to use assert_text vs. assert_visible is not addressed, leaving the agent without decision logic.

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