playwright__browser_find

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds value by explaining the return format (nodes with surrounding context and paths) and the cost benefit. However, it doesn't specify edge cases (e.g., what happens if no match is found).

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, front-loading the core purpose and quickly adding the key behavioral and efficiency insight. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage context, return format, and cost trade-off. It leaves no significant gap for an agent to misinterpret.

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 100%, so the description's job is lighter. It adds clarity by explaining the search semantics (case-insensitive substring for text, case-sensitive with optional flag syntax for regex) and the mutual exclusivity constraint, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 searches the accessibility snapshot of the current page for text or a regular expression, and returns matching nodes with context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like playwright__browser_snapshot (which captures the whole snapshot) and navigation/interaction tools.

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 description explicitly says it's 'cheaper than capturing the whole snapshot when you only need to locate an element and its ref', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the more expensive snapshot tool. It also implies not to use it for full-page analysis.

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