ui.click_handle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious mechanism – a11y elements are re-located first to prevent drift, visual elements use the snapshot center – but says nothing about stale/invalid handle behavior, failure semantics, or side effects, so it is only partially transparent.

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 clause with the key action first and the qualifying mechanism in a compact parenthetical. No sentence is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters and the core drift-avoidance behavior. It omits what happens on failure, whether the action waits for idle, and how it relates to ui.wait_for/app.wait_idle, leaving the agent with gaps for edge cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map both parameters semantically: handle is specified as a snapshot handle (快照句柄) and long_click is covered by 长按. It stops short of explaining where the handle comes from or its format, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb pair (点击/长按) and the resource it operates on (快照句柄 / snapshot handle), which is enough to tell it apart from ui.find, ui.dump and ui.snapshot. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like ui.click, ui.long_click or ui.text_handle, so it falls one notch short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 按快照句柄 tells the agent to use it when it holds a snapshot handle, and the a11y-vs-visual clause hints at when each branch applies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus ui.click, ui.long_click or ui.text_handle, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing a fresh snapshot).

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