find_ui_elements

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists visible Control nodes with certain attributes; it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, how 'visible' is determined (e.g., visibility filter vs on-screen), the effect of the type_filter parameter, or the response format. Key behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and output specification.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits the type_filter parameter and does not specify the exact return structure beyond listing fields. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail is needed for a fully contextual 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?

The input schema has one optional parameter (type_filter) with 0% schema coverage from the description. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its purpose and expected values entirely unexplained. This is a critical gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'visible Control nodes in the running game', further specifying the returned fields (text, global rect, center point in screen pixels). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_nodes_by_type or get_game_scene_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 this is for querying UI elements during gameplay, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_nodes_by_type or get_game_node_properties. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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