sleeper_find_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses essentially nothing. It does not say what is returned, what happens when no match is found, whether the tab is scrolled into view, or how case/matching behaves.

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 single sentence is tight and front-loaded with the verb and mechanism, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy for a four-parameter tool.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to predict return values, failure behavior, or matching semantics.

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 25% (just 'profile'), and the description adds nothing about 'tab', 'text', or 'exact'. Notably the boolean 'exact' semantics (exact vs substring, case sensitivity) are undocumented anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a clear verb (find) and resource (element), plus the locating mechanism (innerText), which helps separate it from selector-based sleeper_find. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like sleeper_find or sleeper_click_text, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling find/click/wait tools (sleeper_find, sleeper_click_text, sleeper_wait_text). No prerequisites or conditions are stated, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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