browser_find

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

With no annotations, the description correctly indicates the tool searches visible interactive elements and returns CSS selectors. It lacks details on error handling (e.g., no matches), performance, or side effects, but provides adequate behavioral context for a find operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loading of the action makes it easy to grasp quickly.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (list of matches with CSS selectors) and usage pattern. Missing details like match fields or error scenarios, but for the tool's purpose it is fairly complete.

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 description explains the 'query' parameter well (searches text/placeholder/label/type), but does not mention the 'session_id' parameter at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should document all parameters; it only partially compensates.

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 finds visible interactive elements whose text/placeholder/label/type contains the query, distinguishing it from siblings like browser_snapshot by specifying it's an escape hatch when snapshot returns only 'generic' references.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when browser_snapshot returns generic elements, providing a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools for other cases.

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