assert_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '断言' implies a check, but it does not disclose whether the tool returns a boolean, throws on failure, retries, waits, or what happens on mismatch. This is a significant gap 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 a single compact sentence with no redundant content. It is appropriately short, though the phrase '各种状态' is vague and slightly under-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 a complex nested target schema and no annotations, yet the description only says 'assert various states of the element.' It does not enumerate the states, mention the locator mechanics, or clarify assertion behavior. This is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 80%, and the schema already explains target, checked, enabled, focused, and visible. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but at high schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('断言' / assert) and resource ('元素' / element), and the scope is '各种状态' (various states). This distinguishes it from assertion siblings focused on attributes or text, though it does not explicitly name them or enumerate the states.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assert_attribute or assert_text. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are given; the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and context.

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