swipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it explains that 'up' scrolls content up/reveals what is below, that duration_ms controls slow drag versus fling, and that coordinates are a fallback. It does not disclose return behavior, but an output schema is present, so the description covers the critical gesture semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential purpose, followed by a terse parameter list. Every line adds information and there is no filler.

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 7-parameter gesture tool with no annotations, this is largely complete: all parameters are explained and the direction semantics remove ambiguity. It stops short of perfect completeness by omitting explicit alternative-tool routing and coordinate units, but nothing essential about invoking the tool is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the Args block must explain the parameters, and it does: direction values, coordinate start/end points, duration semantics, and serial use are all described. It loses one point for not specifying coordinate units (e.g., pixels) and not enumerating direction values in a formal enum.

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 opening line 'Swipe or scroll' states the action and resource clearly, and the coordinate/direction alternatives make the tool's scope obvious. It is easily distinguished from sibling gesture/input tools like tap, input_text, and press_key.

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 implies usage by explaining direction versus explicit coordinates ('Give a direction for a centred swipe, or explicit coordinates'), but it never explicitly says when to prefer swipe over sibling tools like tap, or states exclusions. The 'up... matching how a finger moves' note is helpful context but not a full usage comparison.

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