find_setting

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

The description discloses that the tool navigates the tab and leaves it on the found page, which is a side effect not captured by the annotations. It also explains the iterative behavior of following menu links and stopping at max_pages. This goes beyond the annotation hints and provides useful behavioral 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 concise, two sentences, with no redundant content. It front-loads the purpose and then explains the behavior and constraints. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The description explains the core mechanism but lacks explicit details about the return format ('reports the menu path' is vague), what happens if the keyword is not found, or how it handles pages that fail to load. Since there is no output schema, these details would be useful for an agent to fully anticipate results.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant extra semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., keyword is described as 'What you are looking for' in both places).

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's purpose: to locate a setting in an unknown admin panel by clicking through menu links until the keyword is found, then reporting the menu path. This distinguishes it from other search-related tools like find_text or query_dom, which operate on the current page only.

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 phrase 'in an unknown admin panel' and the mechanism of following menu links give clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It also mentions the max_pages limit and the fact that it navigates the tab, which helps agents decide if this tool fits their need. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives.

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