assert_element_count

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose what happens on assertion failure (e.g., throws error, returns boolean) or whether elements are waited for. This is critical for an assertion 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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is not front-loaded effectively and fails to earn its place by omitting important behavioral and parameter information.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits allowed parameter values, failure behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. The tool is under-documented for an AI agent.

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%. The description does not explain any parameter. While 'selector' and 'expected_count' are self-explanatory, 'by' with default 'css' leaves ambiguity about allowed values (only css? xpath?), which hurts usability.

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 verb 'assert' and the resource 'number of elements matching selector', specifying the action 'equals expected count'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling assertion tools like assert_element_visible.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., assert_element_visible, find_elements). The description lacks context on selection between different assertion types.

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