Desktop Find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says almost nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether it waits/retries for elements to appear, whether filters combine with AND or OR, or how matches are ordered. The only behavioral signal is the word 'search', which implies a non-mutating query but is not explicit.

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 wasted wording. It is lean, though the leanness comes at the cost of the missing semantics noted above rather than from efficient density.

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 in prose, which lowers the bar. Still, for a core query primitive in a desktop-automation suite, the missing pieces (read-only nature, filter combination rules, empty-result behavior) leave gaps an agent must guess at.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does. It names role, name and text (text is not even a parameter name) and implies 'app' scopes the search, but it never explains matching semantics, such as exact vs substring, valid role values, case sensitivity, or whether the filters are conjunctive. That ambiguity is material for a 3-parameter query tool.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Search for UI elements matching a role, name, or text in an app.' An agent knows it is a UI-element locator rather than a screen capture or an action. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like desktop_snapshot or desktop_verify_element, which also deal with UI elements.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this before desktop_click or desktop_verify_element, nothing about what to do when no match is found, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer the workflow from the sibling list alone.

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