find-by-text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool generates XPath but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether it's read-only or mutative (likely read-only, but unspecified), if it has side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on failure (e.g., if no element matches). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology ('XPath', 'element', 'text'). Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a string XPath, an error if no match), behavioral constraints, or error handling. For a tool that likely interacts with mobile testing frameworks, more context on usage and output is needed.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'text' is the search criterion. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 'Generate XPath to find element by text' clearly states the action (generate XPath) and target (find element by text). It distinguishes from many siblings like 'find-elements-by-text' (which likely returns elements rather than XPath) and 'tap-element-by-text' (which performs an action). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'find-by-ios-class-chain' or 'find-by-ios-predicate'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'find-elements-by-text' and 'find-by-ios-predicate', there's no indication of trade-offs (e.g., XPath vs. direct element retrieval, platform-specific optimizations). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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