find_element_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are hit-tested against real coordinates and returned sorted front-to-back by depth, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it does not state the read-only nature, permissions, empty-result behavior, or connection requirements.

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?

A single sentence with no waste. The action ('hit-test a screen position') is front-loaded and the depth-ordering detail is appended efficiently.

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 simple parameterized read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is queried and how results are ordered. Minor gaps remain (behavior on a miss, whether relative_to affects returned ordering), but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so x, y, and relative_to are already documented in the schema; the description adds no format or unit detail beyond what is there and does not mention the relative_to local-space option at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('hit-test') and resource ('scene graph objects at the given coordinates'), and even specifies the result ordering (front-to-back by depth). This is readily distinguishable from siblings like inspect_element or scene_graph, which operate on named elements or the whole tree.

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?

Use is implied by the description — you call it when you have coordinates and want to know what is there — but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as coordinate_transform, inspect_element, or scene_graph, and no prerequisites are stated.

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