computer_find_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing search semantics (e.g., recursive vs. top-level, first match vs. all matches), side effects (none expected but not stated), or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely returns element locations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately short and immediately states the action and resource, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing behavioral context.

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 has three optional search parameters, an output schema, and numerous interaction siblings, the description should at least hint at the returned data or how it fits into a workflow (e.g., feeding coordinates to click). It doesn't, leaving an agent to infer the tool's role and return value.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter (role, title, value) has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 ('Find') and a clear resource ('UI element in the accessibility tree'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like computer_get_accessibility_tree (which retrieves the whole tree) and interaction tools (which act on elements). An agent can immediately understand what the tool does.

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 provides no information about when to use this tool versus computer_get_accessibility_tree or the click/type tools. An agent cannot determine whether to call find_element first to get coordinates or to parse the tree directly, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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