Verify Visual Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds that the screenshot must be 'live captured' and the baseline 'registered,' but doesn't disclose behavior like what happens if the baseline is missing or how failures are reported. With annotations covering the main safety aspects, this is adequate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description provides the core purpose but not enough for a fully complete picture. It doesn't mention return values or expected outcome (e.g., pass/fail), which is significant for a verification tool. However, the tool's simplicity and schema coverage keep it at a mid-range score.

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 100% with each parameter already described. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a clear object ('live captured UI screenshot') and resource ('registered Visual Spec baseline'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like set_visual_spec (which creates baselines) and diff_visual_snapshots (which compares two snapshots).

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 clearly conveys the context of use: verification of a screenshot against a baseline. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the top score but provides clear contextual guidance.

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