browser_find

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It declares read-only behavior, return of refs, and empty result handling. It does not disclose performance characteristics, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond what is stated. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information without fluff. Very concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully explains the purpose, usage context, and expected outcomes (refs, empty results). It also links to sibling tools. Slightly lacking in behavioral depth, but sufficient for the complexity.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about query being for visible text, accessible name, or role, and tabId coming from browser_tabs_list or browser_tab_create. This adds marginal value over the schema alone.

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 the tool finds elements by visible text, accessible name, or role, and returns refs for use with browser_computer and browser_form_input. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_read_page and browser_page_text which are broader reads.

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 provides strong usage guidance: it is read-only, cheaper than reading the whole accessibility tree when you know what you are looking for, and empty results indicate no match (not an error). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list specific alternatives.

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