find_elements

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is non-destructive. The description adds that it returns element ID strings in a JSON array, which goes beyond annotations but doesn't describe edge cases like no matches, multiple matches, or performance characteristics. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with clear strategy priority numbering. It's informative without being verbose. Minor deduction for lacking a line break before strategy list for better scannability.

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 input schema (2 params, both required, fully described) and readOnlyHint annotation, the description sufficiently covers usage intent and strategy selection. It lacks explicit mention of error behavior for invalid selectors or cases where no matches exist, but this is acceptable for a find operation.

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 schema has 100% coverage with detailed enum descriptions for strategy. The description adds value by providing a prioritized strategy list and practical guidance on when to use each, going beyond the enums to explain the 'why' behind each strategy choice.

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 the tool finds UI elements matching a selector and returns a JSON array of element ID strings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_element (returns single element) and find_child_element (scoped to parent) by its generic search scope.

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 explicit strategy prioritization (accessibility id > name > xpath > other), tells when each strategy is appropriate, and directs users to call get_element_info after interacting with located elements to capture the best locator for test code. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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