find_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the matching behavior (partial, case-insensitive), the requirement for at least one filter, and that multiple results are all listed with element_id. It does not mention behavior for zero results or the undocumented 'serial' parameter, but the output schema likely covers return details.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries useful information. It also includes actionable routing to sibling tools without unnecessary filler.

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?

The description covers key filters, matching behavior, and result handling, but the 'serial' parameter is left completely unexplained. Given four optional-looking parameters and no annotations, an agent could still be uncertain about the full expected input contract.

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 must compensate. It explains text, resource_id, and class_name matching semantics, but does not explain the 'serial' parameter at all. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 searches UI elements on the current screen by text/content description, resource-id, and/or class, with partial, case-insensitive matching. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from generic tools like tap or type_text.

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?

It explicitly requires at least one filter and explains how to use the returned element_id with tap_element/type_into when multiple results exist. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not name exclusion criteria or alternatives like wait_for_element.

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