multi_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. It mentions 'rapid' but does not clarify default tap count or interval, nor any side effects or prerequisites. The behavior of the taps parameter (e.g., what happens if omitted) is left entirely to the schema, which is insufficient for a tool that could be used in varied automation contexts.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core action and position, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters (including defaults), so the description need not explain return values. However, the absence of usage context and behavioral details (defaults, differentiation from siblings) leaves the description minimally viable but not fully informative for agents that need to choose among similar tap tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond 'rapid', which loosely corresponds to the interval parameter but does not specify or enhance understanding of the parameters. It neither hinders nor significantly helps beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('perform multiple rapid taps') and location ('same position'), distinguishing it from single tap (tap) and double tap (double_tap) in scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or highlight the customizability of the tap count, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tap or double_tap. The context of 'multiple rapid taps' implies a use case, but there is no 'use when' or 'instead of' language, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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