assert_element_visible

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'assert', implying a check. It does not state what happens on failure (error or boolean), whether it waits, or how visibility is determined. The timeout parameter hints at waiting, but this is not described.

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 at one sentence, but it lacks substance. It is not front-loaded with critical information, and every word is not earning its place because it provides no additional value beyond the tool name.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error behavior, or how it relates to sibling assertion tools. The timeout parameter is not explained, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 explain parameters, but it adds nothing. It does not clarify what 'selector', 'by', or 'timeout' mean, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 'Assert an element is visible on the page' clearly states the verb and resource but is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'assert_element_not_visible' or 'assert_text'. The scope 'on the page' adds minimal value.

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 such as assert_text or assert_attribute. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or context for its application.

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