chrome_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that results are ranked and include stable uids and coordinates, and that the scope is the current Chrome page. However, it is silent on potential side effects, focus behavior, failure modes, or how ranking works, leaving notable gaps.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the output details are given immediately. Every word contributes.

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?

Despite the clear summary, this tool has seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the mode enum, the meaning of 'ranked matches' in practical terms, or how the returned uids/coordinates are meant to be consumed by sibling tools like chrome_click. More detail is needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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 71%, so several parameters already have descriptions. The description adds little beyond the query concept; it does not explain mode options, maxElements, or how targetId/urlIncludes/titleIncludes affect the search. The term 'current Chrome page' could even conflict with the ability to target other tabs via targetId, adding ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'matching controls/text/regions on the current Chrome page', and clearly states the output: ranked matches with stable uids and coordinates. This makes the tool's role obvious, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like chrome_inspect or chrome_snapshot.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical workflows (e.g., find before click), no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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