assert_element_visible

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. It usefully discloses that a missing timeout defaults to 7 seconds and that an exception is raised if the element is not found within the timeout. It could additionally clarify behavior when an element is present but not visible, but the disclosed timeout and failure semantics are valuable.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core action first, then the timeout default, then the failure behavior. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple two-parameter assertion tool, the description covers the essential default and exception behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks selector guidance and does not address when this assertion is preferred over closely related wait/assert siblings, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the timeout parameter's default behavior, but it provides no meaningful explanation of the selector parameter beyond its literal name, leaving the agent without guidance on selector format or accepted syntax.

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 asserts that an element is visible on the page, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like wait_for_element_visible or assert_element, but the assertion-focused wording makes its purpose reasonably distinct.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wait_for_element_visible or assert_element. It only explains the timeout default and exception behavior, which is useful but does not help an agent choose among closely related tools.

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