browser_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Find elements semantically' but does not reveal whether the function performs an action (despite having an 'action' parameter), what it returns, if it mutates state, or if it has side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action, but it is under-specified. It does not effectively earn its place because it omits necessary details, making it feel less like a helpful summary and more like a placeholder.

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 tool with 5 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It lacks any information about return values, error conditions, method options, or action semantics, leaving the agent with almost no guidance on how to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it doesn't clarify what values 'Find method' or 'Action' accept, nor how 'Accessible name filter' interacts with the required fields. It fully relies on the schema's brief descriptions.

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 states a specific verb (find) and resource (elements) with an adverb (semantically) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_snapshot. However, it is vague about what 'semantically' entails (e.g., accessible name, role), so it lacks the specificity of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases where browser_get or browser_eval might be more appropriate, nor does it give any context about typical scenarios or prerequisites. The agent receives no routing help.

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