da_find_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool does NOT click, throws NOT_FOUND, and explains the fuzzy matching behavior (case-insensitive with whitespace normalization). While it could add more about displayId behavior, the critical side effects and error cases are disclosed.

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 efficiently structured: it starts with the main purpose, lists return values, notes the non-click behavior, explains the option, mentions the error condition, and ends with usage guidance against an alternative. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description provides a good amount of context: what it returns, that it does not click, the fuzzy option, and the NOT_FOUND error. It is moderately complete, but the lack of any explanation of `displayId` and the vague 'UI-element classification' phrase leave some gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains `text` (text label to match) and `fuzzy` (case-insensitive matching with whitespace normalization), but `displayId` is not mentioned anywhere. With 3 parameters, missing one is a notable gap, making the parameter guidance adequate but incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Locate the on-screen element whose text label matches `text`'. It clearly states the return values (bounding box, center coordinates, recognized text, OCR confidence) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool `da_click_text` by noting it 'does NOT click'.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when you need to decide an action (click vs. drag vs. type-into) based on element position; use `da_click_text` when you already know the action is "click the center"'. This gives a clear when-to-use and names the alternative tool, making the decision straightforward.

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