find

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 shadow-DOM awareness, return data (ranked matches with ref, role, rect). It implies a read-only operation by its nature. However, it does not explicitly state it has no side effects, which would be beneficial.

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 sentences: first describes functionality and output, second provides usage guidance and alternatives. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value.

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 covers return value well. Parameters are partially explained. Sibling tool context is provided via click_text. The description could be more complete by mentioning maxResults, but overall it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'text' parameter matches visible text or accessible name, adding meaning. However, it does not explain 'maxResults' at all, leaving a gap for that parameter.

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 locates on-screen elements by visible text or accessible name, is shadow-DOM aware, and returns ranked matches with ref, role, and rect. It distinguishes from siblings like click_text by noting that click_text does the find and click in one step.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use: 'when you don't already have a ref.' It provides alternatives: 'use click_text to do it in one step.' It also suggests subsequent actions: 'click/move_to/hover by [ref].' This gives clear context and alternatives.

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