ui_find_element

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's additional context about requiring at least one criterion and returning element info supplements these. No contradictions.

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, using a single introductory sentence followed by bullet-point arguments. It front-loads the primary action and constraints without waste.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main return behavior ('Element info if found') and mentions prerequisites. It could specify search priority or error cases, but is adequate for most use cases.

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 description must compensate. It lists all five parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'automation_id: AutomationId property (most reliable for WPF)'). This adds essential meaning, though some details (e.g., XPath backend) are omitted.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'Find a UI element by AutomationId, name, control type, or XPath.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like ui_click (action) and ui_get_window_tree (tree retrieval) by focusing on locating 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?

It advises using ui_get_window_tree first to discover elements and states that at least one search criterion is required. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the guidance is clear and contextual.

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