firefox_find

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions finding 'visible' elements and 'approximate query', which hints at behavior, but lacks details on return values, error handling (e.g., no match), or side effects (e.g., scrolling). Some transparency is present but significant gaps remain.

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 sentence that front-loads key information. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, error conditions, or how elements are matched (e.g., exact vs. substring). The complexity of element location requires more context than provided.

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?

Only 40% of parameters have schema descriptions. The description adds meaning for the 'by' parameter by listing allowed values (text, role, etc.), but does not explain 'query', 'sessionTabId', 'frameRef', or 'limit'. For a tool with 5 parameters and low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 identifies the action ('Find') and the resource ('visible page elements'). It distinguishes the tool by listing multiple search methods (text, role, label, placeholder, CSS selector, approximate query), which separates it from sibling tools like click or focus. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like firefox_click or firefox_focus. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest alternative tools for similar tasks. The agent is left to infer context from the description alone.

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