browser_tap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'touch click (mobile)' without explaining side effects, visibility requirements, or how the tap is performed. No contradictory information exists, but the transparency is minimal.

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 extremely short (3 words in Chinese), which is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It lacks essential context that would fit in a few more sentences, such as usage compared to siblings.

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 low complexity (1 param) and no output schema, the description is still incomplete because it fails to distinguish this tool from browser_touchscreen_tap and browser_click, and does not explain when mobile tap is appropriate. No annotations or parameter details compensate.

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 sole parameter 'selector' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not mention it at all. The tool name and generic phrasing imply a selector, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 '触摸点击（移动端）' clearly states a tap/touch click action for mobile devices, using a specific verb ('tap') and resource (browser UI). It differentiates from regular clicks by noting mobile context, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like browser_click or browser_touchscreen_tap.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_click or browser_touchscreen_tap. The only hint is '移动端' (mobile), but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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