assert_state

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical success-path behavior (a match ends the run as success) but omits what happens on mismatch, whether an assertion failure is raised, or whether the session continues or terminates.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the outcome condition follows immediately. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for an assertion tool with no annotations, the description should still address mismatch behavior and the session lifecycle implications; that central gap leaves it only adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so baseline applies. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed and focuses on the action and outcome instead.

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 action (check the page) and the object (the session's success criterion), and adds the key outcome that a match ends the run as a success. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like give_up or note, but never names alternatives or clarifies where the success criterion is established.

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?

Implies this is the terminal success check for a session, which is useful context, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance. It does not say whether to call this repeatedly, how it relates to give_up, or what to do on a mismatch.

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