suggest_locators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ranked by stability and that matching is by text/description. However, it does not mention prerequisites like an active session, behavior when no match is found, or whether the operation has side effects.

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 and front-loaded, with every sentence serving a purpose: the core operation, the use case, and the argument description. No redundant content.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits important context such as whether a session must already be connected and how edge cases (no match, multiple matches) are handled. For a one-parameter tool this is a moderate gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining text_or_description as 'Texte visible, label, ou description de l'élément.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare property title in the schema.

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 it searches an element by text/description and suggests the best Robot Framework locators, ranked from most to least stable. This is a specific verb+resource distinction and is unique among siblings like find_elements, which actually finds elements rather than suggesting locators.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'quel locator utiliser pour le bouton Valider ?' which directly tells an agent when to use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like find_elements, but the guidance is clear enough to route selection.

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