browser_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns 'refs' for use with other tools, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like what happens if no elements match, timeout behavior, or performance implications of the limit parameter.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and usage, second sentence explains the output's utility. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's purpose, usage context, and how outputs connect to sibling tools. However, for a tool that interacts with a dynamic browser environment, it could benefit from mentioning error cases or performance considerations.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'natural language description' for the query parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('elements on the page'), specifying it uses natural language queries. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click (which clicks) and browser_text (which extracts text) by focusing on element location for subsequent actions.

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 states when to use this tool ('Find elements on the page using natural language') and provides a clear alternative usage pattern by mentioning that returns are 'refs you can use with click/type', directing to sibling tools like browser_click and browser_type for follow-up actions.

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