find_shadow_element

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does state the operation is a find/lookup rather than a mutation. However, it does not mention behavior on timeout, failure, or closed shadow roots, nor what is returned, leaving some agent uncertainty.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second states the invocation pattern. No filler or repetition; the critical details are front-loaded.

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?

For a low-complexity find tool with two required selectors and one obvious timeout, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. Remaining gaps are minor: no explicit return value or failure behavior, but the operation is simple and the sibling tooling implies standard find semantics.

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?

The schema already describes host_selector and shadow_selector, and the description adds only their order, not new meaning. The timeout parameter is undocumented in the schema and unmentioned in the description, so about one third of the parameter surface gets no semantic help.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find an element inside a shadow DOM'), which immediately distinguishes this tool from generic find_element/find_elements siblings. The second sentence adds the input model: host selector then selector within the shadow root.

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 shadow-DOM phrasing makes the intended use case inferable, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with find_element/find_elements or says when not to use it. It provides how-to instructions, not when-to-use/alternative guidance.

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