Desktop: Find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds that the search targets the UI Automation element tree, which is useful context, but says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs. exact) or the shape of returned results.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it leaves behavioral and usage details uncovered rather than being verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally hint at what a find returns (element handles/IDs for later click/set_value calls), and it does not. Parameters and the safety profile are fully covered elsewhere, but return format and sibling routing remain gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the depth default. The phrase 'matching name, class_name, and/or control_type' only restates those fields and adds no syntax or matching details beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus the precise resource (Windows UI Automation element tree) and the filter dimensions, so the intent is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling desktop_tree, which also exposes the element tree.

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 the tool is used to locate elements (presumably as a precursor to desktop_click or desktop_set_value), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name desktop_tree as the alternative for a full dump versus a filtered search.

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