assert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it fails to mention critical behaviors such as side effects (e.g., 'update-snapshot' may modify state), failure semantics (does it throw an error?), or whether it requires specific permissions. The schema hints at a write capability through 'update-snapshot', but the description omits this entirely.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately terse for the level of detail it conveys.

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 4 parameters, a wide range of assertion types, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It does not explain how assertions are structured, what happens on success/failure, or how the 'task_name' and 'output' parameters relate. The current description only scratches the surface, leaving the agent to infer most context from the schema.

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 75%, and the schema provides reasonable descriptions for output, task_name, and assertions, while format has an enum. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. At 75% coverage (between 50% and 80%), the schema does most of the work, and the description does not compensate for the remaining gaps.

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 'Run' and the resource 'output comparison assertions' with scope 'on tasks or arbitrary text'. This is specific and distinguishes the tool from its siblings (metrics, status, logs, etc.), none of which suggest assertion functionality.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate in certain contexts. The only hint is that it operates on tasks or arbitrary text, but this is implicit rather than actionable guidance.

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