renforge_find_image_on_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return ('bounds') but does not explain failure behavior, side effects, or how parameters like threshold and region affect the search. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core purpose and output.

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 eight parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter guidance, and the description omits important behavioral details like matching logic and failure modes.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the eight parameters. Terms like 'threshold', 'max_matches', and region coordinates are left undefined, requiring the agent to guess or rely on defaults without understanding their impact.

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 action ('find'), a resource ('template image'), scope ('current frame'), and result ('return its bounds'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like renforge_inspect_image or renforge_get_displayable_bounds, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as renforge_find_references or renforge_hit_test exist, but no comparison or contrasting context is provided.

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