Find an element on the page

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context by noting that only labelled elements are matched, that regex matching is safe, and that the result is @eN refs. It does not disclose truncation or cursor continuation behavior, but the schema covers those details and the safety profile is already established by 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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the matching methods, and the return type with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 eight parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return concept (@eN refs) and the matching criteria. Combined with the fully described schema and read-only annotations, this is nearly complete; only explicit sibling differentiation and pagination caveats are missing.

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 because the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds a high-level grouping of search modes (text, regex, role) but no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('labelled elements'), and explicit search criteria (text, safe regex, role), plus the return type (@eN refs). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like steel_snapshot or steel_scrape, which retrieve page content rather than locate specific elements.

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 intended use is reasonably clear: call this when you need element references by label. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives such as steel_snapshot or steel_wait_for, nor does it provide any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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