aua_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds the important behavioral detail that ambiguous matches need an index and that 'bounds don't prove unobstructed access' - a hint that found elements may be occluded - but that phrase is cryptic and the description never says whether results come back as a list, how truncation interacts with limit, or what the returned payload looks like.

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, front-loaded and free of padding, which is good. But the second sentence is compressed to the point of ambiguity - 'bounds don't prove unobstructed access' reads like an internal note rather than actionable guidance - so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 and only read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is the sole source for return shape, result ordering, and limit semantics, and it supplies none of these. For a query tool with a 10-field nested selector and a capped limit, an agent cannot predict what a call will yield.

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%, so the description carries the full load, yet it only covers the string-matching subset of the Selector fields. It never explains limit (default 20, max 50) or truncation behavior, and omits the boolean filters (enabled, focused, clickable), the meaning of index inside the selector, and how exact versus *_contains fields differ.

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 names the lookup fields (text, description, resource_id, class_name, package) and mentions substring matching, so the general idea of a query-by-selector tool comes through. But it never says what is being found (UI elements/widgets) or what the tool returns, so the agent must infer the resource from sibling names like aua_tap and aua_observe.

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 clause 'Multiple targets require an explicit 0-based index' gives conditional guidance for the multi-match case, which is genuinely useful. However, no alternative is named: it never says whether to use this versus aua_observe for inspection or whether aua_tap can take a selector directly, so the routing decision against siblings is left to inference.

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