find

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing server-side search and a typical response size of ~1 KB. It also clarifies active tab behavior. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns.

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 four sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, efficiency benefit, usage guidance, and parameter instruction. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (CSS selectors) and the efficiency gain. It covers key use cases and integration with sibling tools. Lacks details on error handling or return format, but sufficient for most scenarios.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds context: it recommends providing at least one of text or tag, and specifies that browserId defaults to the active tab. This supplements the schema's optional declarations.

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: locating elements by visible text and/or tag and returning CSS selectors. It explicitly distinguishes itself from read_page, a sibling tool, by positioning find as a lighter alternative.

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 gives explicit guidance to use this tool instead of read_page for finding elements and to pass the returned selectors to click/type etc. It also mentions providing text, tag, or both. However, it does not contrast with other siblings like get_attribute or wait_for_element.

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