find_inputs

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It details the algorithm (walking light DOM and shadow roots), recognized elements, and filter matching. Transparency is high, though it could mention that only open shadow roots are traversed.

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 with two paragraphs: a clear summary and a detailed explanation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some redundancy exists ('Find all input fields' is already implied), but overall it earns its sentences.

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 moderate complexity, one optional parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the traversal and matching logic, ensuring an agent can use it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for the single parameter. It does: 'filter_type is a case-insensitive substring match against the input's type attribute or ARIA role.' This provides necessary context beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 'Find all input fields on the page - including shadow DOM,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_element' and 'find_buttons' by focusing specifically on input fields.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'find_button' or 'find_element'. Usage is implied by the focus on input fields, but no guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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