tap_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: it blocks until the element appears and it taps the element's center rather than an arbitrary point. It says nothing about what happens on timeout (error vs. silent no-op), nor about the scroll-retry and audio-recording modes that meaningfully change what the call does.

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 sentence with no filler: lookup criteria first, then wait, then tap target. It is efficient, though for a 10-parameter tool with a nested recordAudio object it is arguably thinner than the surface area warrants.

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?

Ten parameters, a nested audio-recording object, and a scroll-and-retry mode, with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers none of the failure semantics or the side-channel features. For a tool this complex, one sentence leaves the agent to discover significant behavior from the schema alone.

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 and the schema already explains exact/index/scrollDirection/recordAudio in detail. The description adds no interpretation of its own — notably it doesn't explain precedence among id/text/type or how index interacts with the match scoring.

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 names a specific verb (tap) and resource (element located by text/identifier/type), and adds the lookup-and-wait behavior that distinguishes it from a raw coordinate tap. It never names its closest siblings (tap, wait_for_element, double_tap), so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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: 'waiting for it to appear' suggests it fits flaky/off-screen elements better than a plain tap, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to wait_for_element/double_tap/long_press as alternatives. An agent must infer the choice from the sibling names alone.

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