is_state

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects (likely read-only), return format (presumably boolean), behavior on failure (throws vs. returns false), or whether it waits for a condition. The phrase 'Check element state' is minimal and leaves critical runtime semantics unspecified.

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 sentence, front-loading the purpose with an enumeration of states. It is concise and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return value, but it does not. It also does not address how the four parameters cooperate or propose examples. The complexity is moderate (4 params), and the description is too thin to be 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 parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how 'state' interacts with 'target' or typical usage patterns. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('element state') with a list of example states. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check' (which likely toggles a checkbox) by focusing on state verification. Clear purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of how it fits into workflows (e.g., assertions, wait conditions) or when not to use it. The description only states its function, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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