tap_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the high-level action (find and tap) but omits key behaviors such as partial match handling, what happens on multiple matches, whether the tool scrolls to the element, and failure behavior. The schema documents the exact parameter but the description itself adds little beyond the core action.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague 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?

The tool is simple (two params, no output schema), but the description misses behavior that would be relevant in the context of sibling tools, such as whether the tap is performed directly or after scrolling/waiting. The description provides only the essential purpose but lacks detail on edge cases or additional semantics, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema: it simply restates the text parameter's purpose ('find by text content'). The 'exact' parameter's semantics are entirely explained in the schema and not enriched by the description.

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 a specific action ('Find an element by its text content and tap on it') with a clear resource (element) and method (text content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tap' (which typically uses coordinates) and 'tap_element' (which likely uses a selector).

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 the tool should be used when you want to tap an element identified by its visible text, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tap_safe' or 'tap_element'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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