assert_form_value

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'ASSERT on live value' hints at pass/fail semantics but says nothing about what happens on mismatch (raise vs return), whether it blocks or polls, timeout behavior, or what mode/groups do. For an assertion tool, failure semantics are exactly what an agent needs and they are absent.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. It is front-loaded but minimally informative.

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 has 8 parameters, an output schema, and a rich cluster of assert/wait siblings, yet the description covers neither behavior on failure nor the roles of mode, groups, or capture_dir. An output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the behavioral gaps remain too large for this complexity.

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% across 8 parameters (host, port, mode, groups, capture_dir, manager_templates, field, expected). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb (ASSERT) and resource (a form field's live value), which tells an agent this reads current state and fails/passes rather than mutating. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling wait_for_form_value or clarify the assert-vs-wait distinction, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related wait_for_form_value or the write_form_value family. The agent must infer entirely from the name which of the several assertion/wait siblings applies.

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