ai_find_element

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior: it searches the accessibility tree of the frontmost app and returns elements with exact coordinates, implying a read-only operation. With no annotations provided, though, it leaves gaps around failure behavior, multiple-match handling, accessibility permissions, and what happens if no element is found.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core action and return value. The '[AI-Optimized]' prefix adds little and the final sentence partly restates the opening, but the overall length is appropriate and readable.

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?

Core usage is covered: what to pass, what the tool searches, and what it returns. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete about the result shape, matching behavior for multiple elements, and error cases, though the tool is relatively simple.

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 the baseline applies. The description's mention of 'natural language' and 'frontmost app' mostly echoes the existing schema descriptions rather than adding new meaning beyond them.

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 the action ('Find a UI element by description in natural language'), the resource ('accessibility tree of the frontmost app'), and the result ('returns matching elements with their exact coordinates'). It does not explicitly name a sibling distinction, but the search-by-description behavior separates it from generic tree or point-based accessibility tools.

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 phrase 'Use this to locate buttons, text fields, menu items, etc.' gives a concrete context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives like ai_screen_elements, accessibility_tree, or accessibility_element_at, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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