assert_element_not_visible

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the key behavioral trait that hidden and absent are both treated as satisfying the assertion. However, it does not explain whether the tool waits up to the timeout for the element to become not visible or how assertion failures are signaled.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Assert an element is NOT visible') and adds a useful parenthetical ('hidden or absent') without any redundant wording.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, yet the description only covers the assertion condition. It omits important context such as timeout/wait behavior, what the assertion does on failure, and how parameters like 'by' and 'timeout' affect execution. For a simple assertion tool this is a notable gap.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (selector, by, timeout). The word 'element' only loosely maps to selector, but no meaning is added beyond the parameter names in the input 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 states a specific verb ('Assert'), resource ('an element'), and condition ('NOT visible'), and clarifies 'hidden or absent' to define the pass condition. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling assert_element_visible and other element query tools.

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 usage is implied by the tool's name and description: use it when you need to assert that an element is hidden or absent. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools like is_displayed or assert_element_visible, and no exclusions are stated.

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