android_ui_find

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it finds 'visible' elements, clarifying the scope without contradicting annotations. No side effects are mentioned, but none are expected given the read-only nature.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function and a preference hint. There is no unnecessary verbosity or extraneous 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?

While the description covers the core purpose and a usage preference, it omits details about the return format (e.g., list of elements, attributes included) and does not address how parameters combine. Given the lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, the overall context is incomplete for an agent to use the tool with full confidence.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage for 13 parameters, and the tool description does not explain any of them. Parameter names like 'text' and 'descriptionContains' are somewhat self-explanatory, but nuances such as case sensitivity, partial matching, or filter combinations remain ambiguous, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding visible accessibility elements by specific criteria (text, description, view id, class, package, or state). It also provides a distinct preference over coordinate guessing, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description offers one usage hint ('Prefer this over coordinate guessing'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like android_ui_tree or android_ui_click. The guidance is partial and leaves the agent to infer when exactly to use this tool versus alternatives.

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