assert_all

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

Describes key behaviors: no early abort, complete pass/fail picture, and per-assertion results with actual values. Since no annotations exist, this transparency is valuable, though it could mention error handling or session impact.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a recommendation. It front-loads the core purpose and adds no redundant information, earning every sentence.

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, the description provides sufficient output details (overall passed, failed_count, per-assertion results). It could be more complete by noting return format or limitations, but it's adequate for a batch assertion tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds that each item takes the same fields as assert_condition, linking the input structure to a known sibling. This goes beyond the schema's standalone descriptions.

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 is for batch assertions, evaluating many conditions in one call and returning every verdict. It contrasts with the sibling tool assert_condition, making its purpose distinct and specific.

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?

Explicitly recommends preferring this tool over sequential assert_condition calls when verifying a state with 2+ expectations. This provides clear guidance on when to use it versus the sibling.

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