find_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool returns elements with pre-parsed coordinates 'ready for use,' but it does not mention whether it waits for the element, returns one or many matches, or how failures are signaled.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: action first, return format second, and a routing recommendation third. The coordinate details are dense but purposeful.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers its core purpose and return format, which is important given there is no output schema. Still, the complete lack of parameter guidance and limited behavioral detail leave gaps that an agent must infer from parameter names and enum values.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only references the selector concept and does not explain deviceId, platform values, or strategy semantics such as testId, text, and contentDescription.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find UI elements by selector,' and then clarifies the return value (pre-parsed coordinates). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from tap_on_element by noting that tool performs find+tap in one step.

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 description gives clear guidance to prefer tap_on_element when the goal is tapping, which prevents misuse. However, it does not contrast this tool with other related siblings like wait_for_element or get_semantic_hierarchy, leaving some usage boundaries implied rather than explicit.

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