is_element_visible

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey that the check is of the current screen state and identifies elements by text or resource ID, which adds some meaning beyond the tool name. However, it does not state the return contract, behavior when no element matches, or whether this can throw.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states exactly what the tool checks and the element-identification criteria, making it easy to scan.

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 core use is clear, but the description does not specify the return value or behavior when the element is not present, and it does not clarify what happens if neither text nor resource_id is provided. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents text, resource_id, and device_id including regex and default-device semantics. The description only restates that text or resource ID can be used, adding no extra parameter meaning beyond the 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 identifies a specific operation ('check if ... currently visible') and a clear resource (element identified by text or resource ID). It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like assert_visible or wait_for_element.

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 given on when to use this tool versus assert_visible, wait_for_element, or find_element. The 'currently visible' wording implies a direct, non-waiting check, but the agent is left to infer the right context and there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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