assert_exact_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses whitespace normalization, default selector, 7-second timeout fallback, and exception behavior on missing elements or assertion failures. It does not fully clarify whether the tool polls/waits or whether it only considers visible text, but the coverage is quite strong.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently covers defaults and failure semantics. Each sentence contributes useful information, with only minor redundancy around the timeout explanation.

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 three-parameter assertion tool with an output schema, the description covers essential behavior, defaults, and error semantics. It is adequately complete even without explicit alternative routing, which is a minor rather than critical omission.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: 'text' is the expected exact content, 'selector' is a CSS selector defaulting to 'html', and 'timeout' is in seconds with 0/None mapped to 7 seconds. Every parameter receives meaningful context 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 states a specific verb ('assert') and resource ('element's text'), and clearly defines that the match must be exact. The qualifier 'exactly' differentiates it from looser text assertions such as assert_text, making its purpose immediately identifiable.

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 through its exact-match assertion purpose and provides default selector/timeout behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like assert_text or wait_for_text. The selection criteria are left largely to inference.

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