Find Android UI nodes with a semantic selector and return node handle summaries, so agents can inspect and interact with specific screen elements.
语义查找节点（GKD 风格选择器），返回节点句柄摘要列表
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pkg | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| selector | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that results come back as a handle-summary list; nothing is said about blocking/timeout behaviour, whether a single match or all matches are returned, what happens on no match, or whether pkg scopes the search.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, so there is no waste. However it reads as under-specification rather than deliberate brevity at this parameter and behaviour complexity.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description should do far more. It omits return shape details, selector syntax expectations, and how the handles it returns are consumed by siblings like ui.click_handle or ui.hold_read.
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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description loosely clarifies that `selector` is a GKD-style selector rather than CSS/XPath, but `pkg` and `timeout` (default 0) are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (semantic node lookup) and even names the selector dialect (GKD-style), plus what it returns (a list of node handle summaries). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near neighbors like ui.dump, ui.snapshot or ui.get_text, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The agent cannot tell from the text whether to reach for ui.find, ui.snapshot or ui.dump to locate a node.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.