ui_find_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that it finds elements and returns positions, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior (e.g., what happens if no element is found), or whether it returns multiple matches or only the first. It does not specify the format of the positions (e.g., coordinates). These are gaps, but for a simple find operation, it is minimally adequate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and states the output. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. It earns its sentence without fluff.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It tells what it does and that it returns positions. However, it leaves ambiguity about the return format, whether it finds all matches or just the first, and error behavior. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity, but it could be more complete.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters: query (text, aria-label, or CSS selector) and strategy (with enum). The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 action (find), the target (UI elements), and the search methods (text, aria-label, CSS selector). It also mentions the output (positions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ui_click or ui_hover that perform actions. The verb 'find' is specific and differentiates it from other UI tools.

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 implies usage for locating elements before interacting with them, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before ui_click or ui_hover, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool names. The context of it being a search/find operation is clear, but the guidance is not explicit.

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