browser_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context: it returns matching nodes with surrounding context and paths, and notes efficiency. It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently adds return format and efficiency context. No redundant words or fluff.

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?

For a find tool with rich schema and annotations, the description covers the return behavior (matching nodes with surrounding context and paths) and efficiency rationale. It lacks exact output schema details, but that is not required given the high-quality input schema and annotations.

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 (text, regex) having detailed descriptions including case-insensitivity and flags. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool searches the accessibility snapshot of the current page for text or a regular expression, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it is cheaper than capturing the whole snapshot when only locating an element and its ref.

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 a clear usage context: use when you need to locate an element and its ref in the snapshot, implying an alternative to full snapshot capture. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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