Desktop Verify Element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies little: it does not say whether a missing element produces an error or a false/negative result, whether it waits or polls for the element, or whether it requires an accessibility permission. The word "assert" implies failure semantics but that is never made 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical examples are the only elaboration. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a four-parameter, zero-coverage tool operating on GUI automation where a wrong call has real side effects on a live desktop, the description omits element-location semantics and failure behavior that an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The example states ("enabled, selected") gesture at expected_state, but the meaning and format of app, name, and role — and how name and role combine to locate an element — are left entirely unexplained.

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?

"Verify if a GUI element exists and assert its state" gives a specific verb (verify/assert) plus the resource (GUI element) and even example states. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the nearby desktop_find sibling, so an agent must guess when to verify versus merely locate an element.

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 is given about when to use this instead of desktop_find, desktop_snapshot, or desktop_action, all of which plausibly touch element lookup. There are no stated preconditions such as needing a prior snapshot, an active window, or a focused app.

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