vision_find

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds the 'no click' detail and mentions it returns coords+confidence, but does not discuss error handling, edge cases, or response format. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key output (coords + confidence) and the critical caveat (no click). Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 simple locate-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the function and output (coords + confidence). However, it does not specify behavior when the element is not found or clarify the expected detail level of the 'intent' description. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the 'intent' parameter format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource (coords + confidence for a described element), and explicitly notes 'no click', distinguishing it from vision_click. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 'no click' phrasing implies the tool is for locating elements without interaction, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like vision_click or provide a when-to-use rule. Usage context is implied, not explicitly stated.

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