find

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it is non-mutating, tries accessibility first, falls back to OCR, and returns click coordinates in screenshot pixels. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the single annotation, though it does not cover edge cases like zero matches or result ordering.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and return behavior, and every clause contributes useful operational detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes responsibility for explaining return values: accessibility boxes or OCR boxes with click_at coordinates. It is missing minor details such as what happens when nothing is found or whether multiple matches are returned, but for a read-only lookup tool with well-documented parameters it is largely complete.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed: query, ocr, and scope are adequately documented in the schema itself.

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 states a specific action ('Find elements by name') and immediately describes what is returned: accessibility refs with boxes, falling back to OCR text boxes with click_at points. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ocr and read_screen by revealing the accessibility-first and OCR-fallback behavior.

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 fallback condition 'if nothing accessible matches' implies when OCR behavior kicks in, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over siblings like ocr, read_screen, or form_input. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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