MCP Appium Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the iOS-only restriction but doesn't describe what happens when an element is found (e.g., returns element reference), what happens on timeout, whether it waits for element appearance, or error conditions. For an element-finding tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the important platform restriction. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (element reference, success/failure, error details), doesn't describe behavioral aspects like waiting behavior or timeout handling, and doesn't provide guidance on predicate string syntax beyond the minimal example in the schema. Given the complexity of element finding and the lack of structured metadata, the description should do more.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have provided context about predicate string syntax beyond the basic example.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('an element') with the specific method ('using iOS predicate string'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find-by-text' or 'find-by-ios-class-chain' by specifying the iOS predicate approach. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.

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 provides some context with '(iOS only)', which implicitly suggests platform restrictions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find-by-text' or 'find-by-ios-class-chain', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases for predicate-based element finding.

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