find_text

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details about attaching nearby interactive elements with refs for interaction. This is valuable context beyond annotations, though it does not cover edge cases like no match found.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an important behavioral detail. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (parent selector, context, visibility, position, interactive elements). It covers the main aspects but could be more explicit about the list of matches and behavior when no match is found.

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%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning or usage hints for parameters beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'parent selector, context, visibility, position' refers to output, not parameters.

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 text on a page and specifies what it returns: parent selector, context, visibility, position per match, and attached interactive elements for the first visible match. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_dom or get_interactives.

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 implies usage for finding text and obtaining interactive elements, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like query_dom. No when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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