wb_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'Search[es]' and returns '@e refs when present', but it does not disclose whether it is read-only, what happens when there are no matches, whether it depends on a session, or any side effects. Since annotations are absent, this is insufficient for full transparency.

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 two short sentences with no redundant information. Each clause adds value: the first states the action and scope, and the second clarifies the output. The 'like Claude find' analogy is optional but not harmful. It is correctly sized for a simple search tool.

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 the tool's relative simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, the absence of an output schema and minimal behavioral disclosure leaves some ambiguity around return format and usage context (e.g., relationship between query and role, when to prefer this over wb_snapshot). The description covers the core purpose but lacks richer contextual guidance.

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 four parameters (role, limit, query, session), giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds the notion of searching by 'text/role' and returning '@e refs', but it does not meaningfully expand on the parameter semantics already captured in the schema, so 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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('accessibility tree') with the method ('by text/role'), and distinguishes itself by noting it returns '@e refs', which is not mentioned for sibling tools like wb_snapshot or wb_find_tab. The analogy to 'Claude find' reinforces the intended purpose.

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 implies usage for searching an accessibility tree, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like wb_find_tab or wb_snapshot, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether a session must be active). The 'like Claude find' analogy hints at context but does not give concrete usage rules.

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