find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the 20-match limit and the notification for more specific queries, as well as the prerequisite for a valid tab ID. It does not explicitly mention whether the operation is read-only or describe the format of the returned references, leaving some ambiguity.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose. It includes examples, return limits, and a prerequisite, with every sentence adding value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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 simple two-parameter schema and an output schema that likely defines return values, the description covers all essential context: what the tool does, how to query, result limits, and the prerequisite for tab IDs. No significant gaps are apparent for an effective selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions and examples for both parameters (query and tabId). The description adds natural language examples and the tabs_context referral, but this primarily reinforces usage rather than contributing new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool's purpose: 'Find elements on the page using natural language.' It specifies search by purpose or text content, distinguishing it from sibling tools like act_on or form_input which interact with elements. The verb-resource pairing 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 explains when to use the tool (searching for elements via natural language) and provides refinement guidance when more than 20 matches exist. It also directs users to use tabs_context first if no valid tab ID is available. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools for similar tasks, such as get_page_text for reading text content.

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