Locate declared icon templates on the current Android screen and return each match's position, confidence, and semantic label. Use it to detect visible UI icons without hover.
图标模板匹配：在当前屏幕上找声明图集里的图标（无需 hover，图标在屏即命中），返回位置+置信度+manifest 里声明的语义。templates 缺省匹配图集全部；图集用 template.add 从截图裁剪声明
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | 图集名（templates/<game>/），缺省扫全部 | |
| max_per | No | ||
| templates | No | 模板名列表，缺省全部 | |
| threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return shape (position + confidence + manifest semantic) and the no-hover matching behavior, but says nothing about read-only nature, thresholds' effect, failure when nothing matches, or rate/limit behavior.
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?
Front-loads the purpose and then the key constraints/defaults in two dense sentences. Every clause adds information, though the run-on structure could be tighter.
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 output schema, the description helpfully names the return values and the template.add dependency, making the tool callable end-to-end. The main gap is the unexplained threshold/max_per parameters for a 4-param 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 only 50% (max_per and threshold undocumented), yet the description only restates that templates defaults to the whole collection and links it to template.add. The two tuning knobs (max_per=6, threshold=0.78) get no explanation, so the coverage gap is not compensated.
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+scope: template-based icon matching on the current screen, returning position/confidence/semantic. It implies its niche (no hover required, icon-on-screen = hit) versus element-based siblings like ui.find, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Gives useful context (no hover needed, hits on presence) and a prerequisite (collections are declared via template.add), but offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance against ui.find or ui2.scene_match.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.