ui_find_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it searches and returns elements, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, whether it affects the simulator state, or what happens on no-match. This lack of safety and side-effect information is a critical omission for a tool invoked by an AI agent.

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, immediately stating the action and target. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff beyond the harmless '[ios-simulator-mcp]' prefix. All words contribute meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, potential errors, or how the 'udid' parameter interacts with the search. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description fails to provide the behavioral and environmental context an agent needs to safely and effectively use the tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented with descriptive text. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'given criteria', which is already implied by the schema. Per the baseline rule, this scores a 3; the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't hinder it either.

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's core function: searching the accessibility tree and returning matching elements. It uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('accessibility tree'), which distinguishes it from interaction tools like ui_tap or ui_type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ui_describe_all, which also inspects the UI, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended contexts. With sibling tools like ui_describe_all and ui_tap available, the agent is left to infer when to choose this tool, which is a significant gap.

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