assert_condition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that failed expectations raise an assertion-related SeleniumBase exception, that the MCP error wrapper converts it to a descriptive result, and that URL/title checks ignore the timeout. This gives the agent an accurate model of the tool's control flow and failure modes.

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 well-organized with clear sections for purpose, arguments, return, exceptions, and tool selection. It is slightly redundant in places, such as repeating the verify-vs-wait distinction, but the structure makes the important information easy to find and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, return value, exception behavior, timing caveats, and sibling-tool routing. Given the absence of annotations and complete lack of schema-level descriptions, this description alone is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly across all check types.

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 fully explain all five parameters. It does so comprehensively: each check enum value is described, expected is mapped to the relevant check types, selector is scoped to element/text checks, exact is explained for text_visible, and timeout's conditional applicability is called out.

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 the tool's purpose: verify an expected browser condition and fail when it is not met. It explicitly differentiates assert_condition from check_condition by noting that a failed expectation is treated as an error, not a boolean result.

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 explicit tool-selection guidance: use check_condition for inspecting current state, wait_for for waiting on a condition, and assert_condition for verifying an expected condition. It also notes the important exception that URL/title checks do not wait for the timeout, giving agents a clear operational boundary.

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