find_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: criteria are AND-combined by default, match:'any' enables OR, visibleOnly:false includes hidden elements, anchors include resolved href. It does not mention potential side-effects (e.g., scrolling) or confirm it is read-only, but as a search tool the transparency is high.

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 dense paragraph with clear logical flow: output statement, example, criteria details, usage recommendation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly more concise by removing one clause, but overall it is 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?

The tool has 7 parameters including a nested region object and no output schema. The description covers search criteria, combination modes, visibility, region intersection, and provides usage context. It lacks explicit output format details (beyond 'compact uid-keyed matches') but the overall completeness is high for a search tool.

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 71%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the AND/OR combination logic ('Criteria are AND-combined by default; pass match:'any' for a union (OR) when over-specifying returns nothing') and the anchor href inclusion. This provides practical usage context the schema alone does not.

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 it performs a 'deterministic search' using explicit criteria (visible text, CSS selector, ARIA role, screen region) and outputs 'compact uid-keyed matches'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like node_at_point (point in screenshot) and pick_element (physical click) by naming them directly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use to locate the element a user described in words ... before inspecting it. Prefer this (or page_snapshot) over guessing a selector.' It also gives clear exclusions: 'For a point in a screenshot use node_at_point; to have the human physically click the element use pick_element.' This is comprehensive.

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