find_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is inspection-oriented and states the returned data categories, which is useful. It does not mention timeout or no-match behavior, but for a read-only query tool this is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It compactly states both the action and the expected output, so every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists key return fields but not their exact structure. It also leaves sibling differentiation and timing behavior unspecified, making it adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for an agent deciding between related tools.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond 'matching a selector,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('find and inspect elements') and lists concrete return fields (tag, text, attributes, visibility). This clearly identifies the tool's role and differentiates it from sibling interaction tools like click_element and fill_element.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The read-only phrasing 'find and inspect' implies use for querying element state, but the description does not state when not to use it or contrast with related tools like wait_for_element or get_element_attribute.

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