find_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It details return value characteristics (boxes with a center), fuzzy matching default (case-insensitive substring or similarity ratio >= 0.8), the fuzzy parameter to disable it, region support in points, and the confidence threshold guidance. This is far beyond a basic purpose statement.

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, each packing essential information without waste: purpose, usage/confidence advice, and matching modes with sibling comparison. The structure is front-loaded with the core function and flows logically. 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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, usage versus alternatives, parameter meanings, behavioral nuances, and actionable guidance. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 schema has zero descriptions, but the description compensates by explaining the text parameter (string to match), fuzzy parameter (default true, semantics of matching), and region parameter (optional, in points). It adds meaningful context that the raw schema lacks, especially the fuzzy behavior and region coordinate system.

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 first sentence clearly identifies the tool's function: 'OCR the screen (or a region, in points) and return boxes matching `text`.' It uses a specific verb (OCR) and resource (screen/region), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools wait and verify by explicitly contrasting the matching semantics.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: it contrasts with wait and verify which require exact substring matches, indicating when the fuzzy capability is useful. It also offers a confidence-based tip ('Re-observe rather than act when confidence < 0.5') and mentions passing the returned center directly to mouse_click, which suggests a common downstream action.

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