assert_node_state

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose what happens on failure, whether the tool returns a value, or if it halts the game. 'Assert' implies a check but lacks critical behavioral detail.

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?

One sentence, direct, no filler. Front-loads the action and object, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves unanswered questions about return value, error behavior, valid node paths, and practical use in testing workflows.

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 0%; the description only names the concepts (property, node, expected value, operator) but does not explain node_path resolution, property naming, expected value type, or operator meanings beyond the schema's enum. It adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 'Assert' and clearly identifies the target ('a property of a node in the running game') and the mechanism ('against an expected value using the given operator'). This distinguishes it from editor node tools by specifying 'in the running game', aligning with testing/assertion semantics.

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 context is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention test scenarios, suitable conditions, or contrast with sibling tools like 'run_test_scenario' or 'assert_screen_text'.

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