find_disappearing_elements

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool identifies both removed and hidden elements, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, performance implications, output format, or limits of the scan. For a tool that 'automatically scans the session,' the description gives little about what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 sentence and is easy to parse, with the main action front-loaded. It is not bloated, though 'Automatically' adds little value since scanning inherently implies automation. Overall it is concise but leaves out meaningful details rather than being verbose.

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 and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what is returned, how results are structured, and when results are reliable. It does none of this. The sibling list shows related diagnostic tools, but the description does not position this tool within that workflow, leaving a significant completeness gap.

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%, so the parameters are already documented well, including the default for maxLifespanMs. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as how lifespan interacts with 'temporary' elements or what sessionId must refer to. This keeps it at the baseline 3 for schema-heavy parameter coverage.

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 scans a session and identifies elements that were temporary and then removed or hidden. The verb 'identify' and resource 'elements that existed temporarily...' make the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like trace_element or why_did_element_disappear, though 'all elements' implies a broad sweep rather than a single-element lookup.

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 guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings such as why_did_element_disappear, trace_element, or diff_dom. The description implies a session-wide scan, but there is no explicit statement of use cases, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent would be left guessing whether this is the right tool for a post-hoc investigation versus live observation.

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