vnc_find_image

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function, without mentioning whether it blocks until found, returns coordinates, how it handles multiple matches, or any side effects (e.g., screen location). This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with a remote screen.

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 one sentence and front-loaded with the primary action, which is good. However, it is under-specified: it lacks any detail about parameters or behavior, so it sacrifices substance for brevity. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with three parameters (one nested), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, matching algorithm, coordinate system, or interaction with the VNC screen. The agent cannot safely predict the tool's behavior or output.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention template_base64, region, or tolerance at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess interpretation of the nested region and tolerance defaults.

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 'Find a template image on the screen' uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('template image on the screen'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vnc_ocr_region (text) or vnc_screenshot (capture). It states the exact scope and is immediately understandable.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as vnc_ocr_region for text or vnc_get_pixel_color for single points. The description implies a use case but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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