assert_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Same oracle ladder + unverifiable handling', which hints at underlying behavior but does not fully disclose what happens on failure, side effects, or timing behavior.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that are both informative and relevant. No unnecessary words.

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 is simple but lacks details like what happens on pass/fail, error messages, or clarification of 'unverifiable handling'. Without annotations or output schema, the description could be more complete, though it covers the core purpose.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it provides high-level context (shorthand for assert_visible) but no parameter-specific details.

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 clearly states the verb 'asserts' and the resource 'text visible on screen', and distinguishes itself as a shorthand for assert_visible. This differentiates the tool from its sibling assert_visible and provides a specific use case.

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 indicates this is a shorthand for assert_visible, implying it is used when wanting to assert by text rather than other selectors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the sibling tool.

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