sleeper_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 of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. "Inspect" weakly implies a read, but there is no statement about what is returned, behavior on zero matches, whether elements must be visible/attached, or pagination/limits for large result sets.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but the brevity is under-specification rather than earned conciseness given the tool's 3 parameters and dense sibling set. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare purpose.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by describing the return shape or result semantics, and it does not. It also omits how this differs from the many other selector/text-reading siblings, so an agent lacks the context needed to call it correctly.

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 only 33%: profile is documented in the schema, tab is bare, and selector is bare. The description's phrase "by CSS selector" only restates the selector parameter's obvious role, adding no syntax guidance (e.g., match-all vs first match, shadow DOM, frames) and nothing at all for tab.

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?

"Inspect elements by CSS selector" gives a verb (inspect) and a resource (elements), but "inspect" is vague about the actual outcome — does it return matches, counts, or handles? It also never distinguishes itself from close siblings like sleeper_find_text, sleeper_get, or sleeper_extract, leaving the agent to guess which selector-based reader to use.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. With siblings such as sleeper_find_text (text matching), sleeper_get, and sleeper_extract, the absence of any disambiguation is a real gap — the agent must infer that CSS selectors are the differentiator.

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