find_element_by_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns element details including tap coordinates,' which adds some context about output behavior. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this requires UI automation permissions, if it works only on visible screens, potential performance implications, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context about return values. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain returns in detail. However, for a UI interaction tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about when and how to use it effectively. The mention of 'tap coordinates' is helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention any parameters explicitly, though it implies the 'text' parameter through 'containing specific text.' It doesn't explain 'partial_match' or 'device_serial' at all. With 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find UI elements containing specific text' specifies the verb (find) and resource (UI elements) with a key constraint (containing specific text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_element_by_id' by specifying text-based search, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_all_text_on_screen' or 'scroll_to_text'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'find_element_by_id', 'get_clickable_elements', or 'get_all_text_on_screen', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an active UI session or device connection.

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