Find a control 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 does disclose that results are capped by limit and that there are 'no game state changes' (read-only), which is useful behavioral context. That said, it doesn't describe permission requirements, pagination, failure modes when no match is found, or return shape beyond 'refs'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and search criteria, then immediately covering return refs and usage context. Every clause adds value: use cases, cap behavior, and non-mutation guarantee.

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 read-only search tool with a rich 6-param schema and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it specifies inputs, return type (refs), downstream tools, result capping, and no side effects. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer over inspect_ui or how to handle empty results, but covers the essentials well.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds conceptual value by mentioning 'label text and/or input name' (mapping to text/name) and 'results are capped by limit', but does not add syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('visible controls (buttons, links, labels, inputs)'), and names the exact criteria (label text and/or input name). It also names the ref-using siblings (click_ui, interact, upload_file), making it distinguishable from inspect_ui and observe without opening schemas.

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?

Provides clear positive context: 'fastest way to reach radio/checkbox options ... and any input beyond the 40-item observation window,' which implicitly tells when to prefer this over observe/inspect_ui. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it or contrasts it directly with inspect_ui, so it falls short of a 5.

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