assert_screen_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'assert' implies it may throw an error or return a boolean, but the description does not specify the failure behavior, return value, or whether it scans the entire screen. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a test assertion tool.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the core action and target. It could be considered impressively concise, though it sacrifices detail that might be expected for a tool with 3 parameters.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for the tool's complexity. It states the main function but omits critical details like assertion failure semantics, parameter meanings, and return values. The tool appears simple, but the missing context prevents full understanding for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, but it only mentions 'text' and ignores 'partial' and 'case_sensitive'. The schema provides no descriptions, and the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter names, leaving agents to guess their meanings.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Assert') and resource ('text' in any Control element of the running game). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like click_button_by_text (clicking vs asserting) and find_ui_elements (finding vs asserting).

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 implies usage for verifying text visibility during game testing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assert_node_state or wait_for_node. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving the usage context clear but unguided.

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