find_all_info

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

The description adds useful behavioral information by stating that each result includes tag name and text, and the operation appears read-only. However, it does not say what happens when no elements match, whether the tool waits for elements, or how the timeout parameter affects behavior. With no annotations provided, these details are missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning and it is easy to scan.

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?

For a relatively simple two-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description captures the core operation and return values. Yet it is incomplete on timeout behavior, no-match behavior, and differentiation from sibling tools. It is minimally viable but leaves important operational questions open.

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 had to compensate for both parameters. The word 'matching' weakly ties to the selector parameter, but it does not clarify selector format or semantics. The timeout parameter is not mentioned at all, even though the default null suggests meaningful behavior.

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 and resource: 'Find all matching elements' and explicitly states the return payload: 'tag name + text for each.' This makes the tool easy to distinguish from similar siblings like find_element_info (single element) and find_elements_count (count only). The scope ('all') is clear.

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 behavior implies use when you need tag and text for every matching element, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or explain when to prefer find_element_info or get_text over this tool.

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