is_text_visible

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return whether' without explaining whether the call waits, throws on absence, treats hidden text as non-visible, or performs any side effects. This is a significant gap for a predicate 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 focused sentence with no filler. The key action and subject are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description still leaves important invocation details undefined: visibility semantics, waiting behavior, selector interpretation, and how this differs from similar assertion/wait tools. An agent would likely need to inspect other tools or docs to call it correctly.

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 loosely maps 'text' and 'element' to the two parameters, but it does not clarify matching semantics (exact vs substring), selector syntax, or the default 'body' behavior. The added meaning beyond the schema is minimal.

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 clear predicate: whether a specific text is visible within an element. It identifies both the resource (text visibility) and scope (an element), which helps distinguish it from generic visibility checks like is_element_visible, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus wait_for_text, assert_text, or is_element_visible. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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