find_setting

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false yet destructiveHint=false, and the description supplies exactly the missing context for that split: it navigates the tab and leaves it on the last page visited, which explains why it is not read-only. It also adds the same-origin constraint on crawled links, the max_pages cap, and the return payload. It stops short of covering auth requirements or rate limits, but the key side effect is disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return values and side effects. Every clause carries information (mechanism, returns, navigation side effect, cap) with no filler, though the density borders on packed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so well: URL, menu path, matching text, and a pages-tried count on failure. Combined with the disclosed tab-navigation side effect and the schema's parameter docs, an agent has what it needs; only keyword-matching semantics and permission prerequisites are left implicit.

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 schema already defines tab_id, keyword, max_pages, and menu_selector. The description only echoes max_pages ('at most max_pages') and alludes to menu links; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (a setting), plus the exact mechanism: following the panel's menu links until a page contains the keyword. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like click, navigate, or find_text, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate. The 'unknown admin panel' framing makes the intent unambiguous.

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' implies the scenario in which to reach for this tool (you don't know where a setting lives), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative to compare against. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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