find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It discloses matching behavior, results are case-insensitive regex, applies to several attributes, honors selector over query, and returns up to 20 refs per frame, which is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema. It could go further, but it is already substantive.

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 content is tight, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The first sentence conveys the core search modes and attributes; the second sentence mentions resource limit. Everything included is useful.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors and even the return cap. It still does not explain what 'refs' mean or how they are consumed by the follow-up tools, but that is largely contextual expectation rather than a lethal gap.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds small semantic context like matching being case-insensitive and how selector overrides the query, but it does not explain tabId beyond the schema, so it doesn't push above baseline.

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 that the tool finds elements by text, label, placeholder, id, name, href, or CSS selector, and gives a result cap of 20 refs per frame. This makes its purpose distinct from sibling interaction tools like hover/click and page-level functions like get_page_text.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not say that this tool should be used to obtain refs before action tools, nor does it mention any alternative tools to prefer in specific situations. The usage context is only implied by the description.

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