ui_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It explains matching semantics (exact for name/class_name, substring for text), the requirement that at least one criterion be supplied, and that filtering occurs client-side, not here. This goes beyond the input schema and gives the agent realistic expectations about performance and result scope.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and is efficiently written across three short paragraphs. The first sentence delivers the core action, and subsequent paragraphs add necessary context without fluff. The only slight waste is the longer explanation of why substring matching is used, but it justifies a non-obvious decision, so it earns its place.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects and the main alternative, but leaves several parameters undefined. The output schema presumably documents the return structure, so that gap is mitigated. Still, an agent may not know how `root`, `depth`, `limit`, and `timeout` affect results without deeper inspection. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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. It explains the meaning of `name`, `class_name`, and `text`—the three search parameters—including exact vs. substring matching and the implicit requirement that at least one be provided. However, it does not describe `root`, `depth`, `limit`, or `timeout`, leaving those to be inferred from their names. Given that 4 of 7 parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, this is only partial compensation.

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 first sentence 'Find widgets by name, class or text, without fetching the whole tree' states a specific verb, resource, and explicit scoping constraint. It also explicitly contrasts itself with ui_tree, making it clear which sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without consulting other schemas.

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 explicitly names ui_tree as the alternative when no search criteria are provided ('with none of them this would be ui_tree'), giving a clear when-not-to-use condition. It also clarifies that filtering is client-side, implying this is the right tool when you want filtered results rather than the full tree. It doesn't discuss all siblings, but the primary alternative is well addressed.

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