assert_visible

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool waits for visibility or throws on failure, what happens if element is not found, or if it returns a value. The phrase 'becomes visible' hints at waiting, but is not explicit.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with key information, and the brevity sacrifices clarity rather than enhancing it.

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 complexity (nested selector, timeout) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error behavior, or how it relates to sibling assertion tools.

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 description must compensate. The description does not explain any parameters: no mention of 'selector' structure or 'timeoutMs' meaning, default, or constraints. Parameters are entirely undocumented in the description.

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 'Assert an element becomes visible' states the verb and resource but is vague. It doesn't differentiate from sibling 'wait_until_visible', which may also check visibility. The timeout parameter implies waiting, but the description doesn't clarify if it waits or asserts immediately.

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 like 'wait_until_visible' or 'assert_attribute'. Missing context about prerequisites (e.g., browser must be started) or typical use cases.

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