Verify Screen State (AI) [Pro]

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

Discloses that AI is used, returns boolean with confidence and evidence. With no annotations provided, description carries full burden; however, it lacks details like potential latency, need for device connectivity, or that verification may fail for ambiguous assertions.

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?

Concise at two sentences, plus examples. Title includes '[Pro]' which adds context. No waste, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted list).

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 no output schema, description hints at output (boolean, confidence, evidence) but doesn't specify types or structure. With 2 params and straightforward purpose, description is minimally adequate but would benefit from more detail on return values and error cases.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'device_id' and 'assertion'. Description adds example assertions but doesn't add significant meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies assertions about the current screen using AI, returns a boolean with confidence and evidence. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_screen' (which likely does generic analysis) by focusing on specific assertion verification.

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?

Provides example assertions to suggest use cases, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives. For instance, no mention that for simple element existence one might use 'find_element' instead.

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