wavexis_find

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

Beyond the annotations, the description clarifies that this tool read-only fetches and searches the a11y tree and exposes the exact return shape ('status', 'matches', 'count'), including that results are returned as a JSON string. It does not discuss regex syntax limits or how 'limit' affects results, but it provides substantial operational detail without contradicted annotations.

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 compact and logically ordered: the core functionality, the main alternative, side effects, and return schema are each mentioned in separate, crisp sentences. No unnecessary words or filler distract from the message.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers operation, safety, alternative routing, side effects, and return format. Together with rich annotations and a schema that explains required fields, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents each parameter: text or regex to search, maximum number of matches, and the active session ID. The tool description does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 a specific action: searching the accessibility snapshot for nodes matching text or regex. It differentiates from wavexis_act by calling out that tool for natural-language interaction, but does not distinguish itself from the similarly named wavexis_find_by_text sibling, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

It explicitly directs users to wavexis_act for natural-language element interaction, and the Playwright-compatibility note gives useful context for expected behavior. However, it does not explain when to choose waveaxis_find over wavexis_find_by_text or other snapshot/DOM search tools, so only one alternative is fully covered.

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