Renforge Find Image On Screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not explain what 'current frame' means, how matching behaves with the threshold, whether multiple matches are returned, the coordinate system of the bounds, or what happens when nothing is found.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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?

Image matching with 8 parameters and zero annotations is a nontrivial operation, and the description provides no scoping, error, or parameter context. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'template image' loosely maps to template_path; threshold, max_matches, region_x/y/width/height, and project_path are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (a template image in the current frame) plus the return (its bounds), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not contrast this with siblings that also deal with images/screens (inspect_image, diff_screenshots, hit_test), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives no indication of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like inspect_image, diff_screenshots, or hit_test, and states no prerequisites (e.g., that a frame must first be captured). A single-sentence description with no usage cues leaves the agent to guess.

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