Android MCP

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this tool performs a destructive action (likely modifying UI state). The description adds context by specifying it's a click on a coordinate, which implies it interacts with a graphical interface, but doesn't detail what 'destructive' entails (e.g., triggering buttons, changing screens). No contradiction with annotations; the description complements them by clarifying the action type.

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, direct sentence: 'Click on a specific coordinate.' It's front-loaded with the core action, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and target.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters) and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, it should ideally explain more about the coordinate system or expected outcomes. It meets basic needs but lacks depth for full agent understanding.

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 0%, so the schema only defines x and y as integers without explanations. The description adds minimal semantics by implying these are coordinates for clicking, but doesn't specify coordinate system (e.g., screen pixels, relative positioning), units, or valid ranges. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves key details unclear.

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 'Click on a specific coordinate' clearly states the action (click) and target (coordinate), but it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being clicked (e.g., a UI element, screen location). It distinguishes from siblings like 'Drag' or 'Swipe' by specifying a single-point action, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'LongClick' which is also a coordinate-based click variant.

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 versus alternatives like 'LongClick' (for longer presses) or 'Press' (for keyboard actions). It doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a connected device (implied by sibling 'ConnectDevice') or context about UI interaction. Usage is implied from the action name alone.

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