android_find_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it searches the current screen and returns elements with computed center tap coordinates, implying a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not describe failure behavior when no match is found, how multiple matches are handled, or any permissions/limitations.

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 fluff. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return value (center tap coordinates) is stated in the second. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

For a 7-parameter optional tool with no output schema, the description explains the search scope and the return type (matching elements with center coordinates). However, it omits details on how multiple criteria combine (AND/OR), whether all matches or only the first are returned, and the exact return structure – a gap since there is no output schema to clarify this.

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 100% – every parameter has an individual description. The tool description's list of search criteria (text, content description, resource ID, class name) maps directly to schema fields, adding no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'UI elements on current Android screen', lists four search criteria (text, content description, resource ID, class name), and notes it returns elements with computed center tap coordinates. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like android_ui_dump (hierarchy dump) and android_click_element (action).

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as android_ui_dump or android_click_element are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer that targeted searching should precede clicking. No conditions, exclusions, or guidance on selecting between find and dump actions.

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