vision_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that it performs 'vision-based screenshot analysis' and returns an annotated screenshot, but does not elaborate on the analysis process or potential side effects (though there are none). It adds some context beyond annotations.

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 concise at two sentences, but it is somewhat vague and lacks detail. It could be restructured to front-load key information like the purpose and output, but the brevity is acceptable given the schema richness.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain the output format, how 'numbered elements' are represented, or how to interpret the results. The annotations cover safety, but the description fails to provide sufficient operational context.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage guidance for the parameters, providing no extra value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'Find elements using vision-based screenshot analysis,' which specifies the verb (find) and resource (elements). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find' (likely DOM-based) by emphasizing 'vision-based.' It also mentions the return of an annotated screenshot with numbered 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'find', 'element_pick', or 'image_qa'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.

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