find_element

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: case-insensitive matching and the return of bounds and tap centers, which are useful for subsequent actions. It also implies multiple results without specifying limits, which is a minor 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action, includes the matching criteria, and provides return value information. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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, the description supplies essential return information (bounds and tap centers). It explains the matching logic and case-insensitivity, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it does not mention potential limits (e.g., maximum results) or error conditions, and the absence of usage guidance is a gap partially captured in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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 only documents serial; query has no description. The tool description clarifies that query is the string to search for in text, content description, or resource ID, partially compensating for the missing schema description. However, it does not specify any format constraints for query, and serial semantics are already fully covered by the schema.

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 a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'UI elements', and details the matching criteria (text, content description, resource ID) with case-insensitivity. This distinguishes it from siblings like wait_for_element or describe_ui, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases such as locating an element before tapping, nor does it exclude scenarios where wait_for_element or describe_ui would be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied.

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