computer.find_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core mechanism (template matching or optional vision model) and the return type (bounding box), which is helpful for a read-only lookup. However, it does not mention failure behavior, timeouts, coordinate conventions, or what happens when neither template nor description resolves a match.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the two matching modes, and ends with the return value. Every clause earns its place.

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 gives the essential purpose and return shape, but leaves gaps an agent would need for reliable invocation: threshold semantics, whether at least one of template/description is effectively required, and failure/coordinate details. It is adequate for a simple read-only lookup but not fully complete.

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 adds meaningful semantics for 'template' (image template name, configured template directory) and 'description' (natural-language via optional vision model). However, 'threshold' is left completely unexplained, and the interaction between the three parameters is not clarified.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Find a UI element visually.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the two matching modes (template name or natural-language description) and the return value (a bounding box). This clearly separates it from text-based alternatives like find_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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to locate a UI element by visual appearance rather than by text or tree structure. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as find_text, get_ui_tree, or observe, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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