find_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states "Returns element details if found," which omits critical behaviors such as what happens when not found (null? error?), whether it searches the entire visible screen, how matching works (exact/partial), or if it waits for the element. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 one concise sentence that includes both the action and the return value. No filler or repetition, every word 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?

Given the tool's role and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the shape of returned element details, failure semantics, or matching rules. For an agent to invoke this tool reliably, more behavioral context is needed.

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 describes all three parameters fully. The description adds "and/or", suggesting combinability, but does not clarify whether any parameter is required or how attributes are matched (exact string comparison). With 100% schema coverage, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Find a UI element on screen using text, tag, and/or attributes" clearly states the verb and resource. It also notes that it returns element details, which differentiates it from verify_element_present (likely a presence check). The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from siblings.

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 this tool is used when you need to locate a UI element by any of the given criteria. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like verify_element_present or get_ui_source. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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