Find Nodes On Screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond scope. It says nothing about what the operation returns, performance, truncation, or permission requirements for a 9-parameter query tool.

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 tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to earn maximum credit for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and zero schema descriptions on 9 parameters, the description leaves the agent without the semantics needed to call the tool correctly.

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% across 9 parameters, so the schema provides no meaning. The description adds only that results are screen-limited, giving no guidance on desc, text, tree, device, class_name, resource_id, or any of the *_contains filters.

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 clear operation (find nodes) and scopes it to the visible screen, which distinguishes it from the sibling find_nodes. However, it defines itself relative to find_nodes rather than describing what a 'node' is or what is returned, so an agent must already understand find_nodes.

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 phrase 'limited to nodes inside the visible screen' implicitly tells when to prefer it over find_nodes (when off-screen nodes are irrelevant), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives by name.

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