wpf_find_elements_deep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: no result limit, requirement for at least one filter, and scoping via root_handle. It does not cover return format or performance implications, but the main behavioral aspects are transparent.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and requirement, then list filters and scoping. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous text.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input constraints but misses important context: it does not describe the return format (list of elements) or any error conditions. The word 'deep' is used but not defined. These gaps reduce completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 5 of 6 parameters (type_name, element_name, text, visible_only, root_handle) with matching semantics. However, 'property_filter' is mentioned but not explained, which is a minor gap. Overall, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 performs a deep search for all matching elements with no result limit. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'wpf_find_elements' by specifying 'no result limit' and indicating the same filters, making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 clear usage constraints: requires at least one of type_name, element_name, or text to avoid returning the entire tree. It also mentions using root_handle to limit scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative tool (e.g., wpf_find_elements for limited results), though the differentiation is implied.

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