input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only lists actions and parameter types, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., UI changes), platform-specific behavior (despite schema having a platform field), or what happens after execution. The 'hints' parameter is not described in the text.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it is terse to the point of being cryptic for some entries (e.g., 'text: type text' is minimal). A bit more structure or examples would improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With 18 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to choose between parameters (e.g., when to use coords vs. text), platform-specific details, or the return format (hints). The tool requires more context to be used effectively by an agent.

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 94%, so the schema does most of the work. The description briefly summarizes parameter options (e.g., 'coords or text/id/label/index') but adds limited new meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool is for input actions and lists the supported actions (tap, double_tap, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ui' or 'screen' by focusing on input events. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other tools on the server.

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 over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or examples of appropriate use cases. The agent must infer usage from the action list alone.

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