Verify state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses genuine internal behavior (structured UI-tree heuristics first, vision fallback) which is valuable. However, it does not state what happens on a failed verification (throw vs return), whether the vision fallback has cost/latency implications, or any return shape.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the verification strategy is front-loaded ahead of the assertion syntax. Efficient, though the second clause mixes strategy detail with assertion trivia.

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 a nested target object and a nested assertion object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It explains the verification approach but leaves the target parameter, the goal semantics, and the verification return/outcome entirely undocumented.

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 coverage is low (33%), so the description should compensate, but it only enumerates some assertion properties (checked/exists/value/textVisible) and notably omits valueEquals/valueContains that exist in the schema. The goal and target parameters receive no explanation at all.

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 gives a specific verb (verify) and resource (a goal against the current screen), and separates itself from a pure read by naming the verification mechanism (UI-tree heuristics then vision fallback). It stops short of naming which sibling (e.g., computer_get_state, computer_inspect) to use instead, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 only implied: the reader infers this is for checking a goal/assertion after an action. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative verification paths offered by siblings like computer_inspect or computer_get_state.

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