Accessibility Find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a bounded breadth-first search, supports case-insensitive substring matching, returns elementHandles, and requires Accessibility permission. This goes beyond what annotations and schema descriptions convey.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, scope, and criteria; the second explains the return value and permission requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, return type (elementHandles), scoping (app or window), and permission. It lacks explicit mention of result ordering or error behavior, but for a bounded search tool with schema-provided limits (maxDepth, maxResults), this is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic relationships between parameters: role, title/value substring, and AXIdentifier can be combined ('and/or'), and title/value matching is case-insensitive. This is meaningful beyond the per-field schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('accessibility tree'), with explicit scope (app or single window) and matching criteria (role, case-insensitive title/value substring, AXIdentifier). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ax_snapshot by focusing on bounded search and returning elementHandles for ax_invoke/ax_set_value.

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 gives clear context: use this to find elements in the accessibility tree for later invocation or value setting, and notes that Accessibility permission is required. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the return-handle purpose implies the use case vs. ax_snapshot.

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