appium_locator_intel

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries real weight here and does so well: it explains match-count semantics (1 = unique), the 0-100 stability score, the three warning classes (value-dependent ids, positional xpath, hidden target), and that results are ordered with the recommended locator first. The staleness caveat about re-verifying after navigation is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences, purpose first and caveat last, with no filler; each clause (match count, stability score, warnings, ordering) conveys a distinct fact. The sentences are densely packed with parenthetical clauses, which costs a little readability but not substance.

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 must explain the return value and largely does: a ranked list of locator candidates with match counts, stability scores and warnings. The remaining gap is that it never says which locator strategies are emitted (id, accessibility id, xpath, etc.), which an agent needs to know to use the candidates.

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 88%, so the schema already documents id, text, input, limit, clickable, sessionId, verbosity and includeHidden in detail. The description adds only indirect meaning, e.g. the 'hidden target' warning implicitly ties to includeHidden and 'by description' maps loosely to text/id. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('find target element(s) by description') plus the distinctive output ('validated locator candidates'), which separates it from plain find tools like appium_find_element/appium_find_elements and from generate_locators. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: the tool is for discovering stable locators before authoring a test, and the closing note gives a concrete rule ('counts come from the current screen, so re-verify after navigation'). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where the agent already knows the locator or just wants to interact with an element.

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