wavexis_find_by_text

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

The description adds details beyond annotations: it states no side effects, that it is read-only, and does not interact. It also describes the return format and error structure. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description reinforces and expands on behavioral traits.

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 concise: three short paragraphs with clear separation of purpose, usage context, and return format. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool is simple with few parameters. Annotations are present, and the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and return format. No gaps remain, making it fully complete for an AI agent.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (query, all, session_id). The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema already covers. With schema_description_coverage effectively high, the baseline of 3 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 it finds element selectors by visible text content. The verb 'find' and resource 'element selector(s)' are specific. It is distinct from siblings like wavexis_dom_query or wavexis_find because it specifies 'by visible text content' and 'without interacting'.

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 advises using this tool before wavexis_click or wavexis_fill when the visible text is known but the CSS selector is not. This provides clear context and ties to sibling tools, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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