verify

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden and delivers key behaviors: exact substring matching, the baseline_screenshot_id requirement, and that clipboard_contains only returns matched/clipboard_len, not clipboard content. It lacks an overall return format description, but is substantially transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The list of expect types is dense but every sentence adds value. Slight formatting improvement could help, but it is not verbose.

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?

While the description covers multiple expect types and specific behaviors, it does not specify the tool's overall return value (beyond clipboard_contains) or provide an example of the expect object shape. Without an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity for a complex tool.

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 compensate. It explains the `expect` object structure with allowed types and mentions baseline_screenshot_id for region checks. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema, though a concrete example would improve clarity.

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 clearly states a specific purpose: 'Check an expected outcome after acting.' It also lists the supported check types, distinguishing it from sibling action/observation tools. No tautology is present.

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 phrase 'after acting' gives clear usage context. It also provides specific prerequisites, such as 'region_changed/unchanged need baseline_screenshot_id from an earlier screenshot response' and clarifies that text matching is exact and case-insensitive. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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