browser_touchscreen_tap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention the effect of the tap (e.g., whether it dispatches touch events, whether it requires a mobile emulation context, or whether it scrolls the page), any side effects, or prerequisites. The description '触摸屏点击坐标' merely restates the basic action without adding any behavioral context beyond what the name implies, making it nearly useless for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 (one noun phrase), which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. There is no structure with key information front-loaded; it reads more like a label than a description. Every word should earn its place, but here the words provide only vague meaning and omit critical details. This is not concise in a useful sense but rather a deficiency in specification, so it scores low.

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's simplicity, the description is still far from complete. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral details. A user/agent cannot determine when to use this tool, how the coordinates are interpreted, or what the expected outcome is. The tool has many siblings, and the description fails to position it within the broader automation context. This is a significant gap, leaving the description essentially inadequate for reliable selection and invocation.

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 defines x and y as required numbers, but has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description says '坐标' (coordinates), which indicates that x and y are coordinate values, but it does not specify units, coordinate system origin (viewport vs. page), or whether they are integers vs. floats. This adds minimal meaning over the bare schema, leaving the agent to guess the exact semantics. Since the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 '触摸屏点击坐标' translates to 'touchscreen tap coordinates', which conveys that the tool taps on a touchscreen at specified coordinates. This gives a general sense of the action and resource, but it is terse and ambiguous (could be interpreted as a noun phrase rather than an instruction). It does not explicitly state the verb 'tap' or 'click', and while it differentiates from mouse-based actions like browser_click, it does not clearly contrast with sibling tools like browser_tap, which may also involve tapping. Thus it is a vague but not entirely unhelpful description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools such as browser_click, browser_tap, and browser_mouse_click, but the description does not mention any context like 'use for touch-enabled devices' or 'when a tap event is needed'. The tool name implies touchscreen usage, but the description itself offers no explicit or even clearly implied usage conditions, leaving the agent without sufficient direction.

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