wb_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the operation is idempotent, it verifies state, and it avoids blind toggling. It omits what verification returns, how mismatches or missing elements are handled, and whether failures are surfaced as errors.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat follows immediately.

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 six parameters, a nested target object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should explain return/verification behavior and failure modes, and ideally clarify selector targeting or precedence, but it covers only the core idempotency idea.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The roles of `target`, `checked`, `timeoutMs`, and the selector/target precedence are left to the schema, which itself leaves the nested `target` object largely undocumented.

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 and resource (set checkbox/radio state) and adds a distinguishing behavioral property (idempotent and verified). It implicitly separates the tool from `wb_click` by clarifying it does not blindly toggle, though it does not name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Set checkbox/radio state', which tells the agent the tool is for checkboxes and radios rather than generic clicking. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over `wb_click` or `wb_select`, and no exclusion or prerequisite information.

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