Browser Find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the important visible-only filter and the fact that the tool returns refs rather than performing an action, implying a read-only operation. It does not cover no-match behavior or exact/substring matching, but those are secondary for a locator.

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?

One compact sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the output purpose attached. No filler or repetition.

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 simple locator with an output schema and defaulted optional parameters, the core contract is complete: query by accessible attributes, only visible elements, return refs usable by browser_act. Minor omissions are explicit matching semantics and any session-only precondition, but they do not block correct invocation.

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 compensate. It adds useful semantics to query by enumerating which accessible attributes are matched. However, it says nothing about limit, device, or session, leaving an agent to infer their roles mostly from names/defaults.

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?

"Find visible elements" names a specific verb, resource, and scoping constraint, followed by the accepted match attributes (text, label, placeholder, alt, name). The explicit return of refs for browser_act distinguishes this locate/query tool from sibling action and extraction tools.

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 clearly positions the tool as the discovery step that feeds browser_act by returning refs. It does not spell out exclusions or when to prefer browser_extract/browser_read, so it misses the top tier.

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