iphone_tap_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses exact-vs-substring matching and index ordering, but it does not explain failure behavior when no match exists, whether the tap waits/retries, or what side effects/permissions are involved.

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 action, followed by matching behavior and index semantics. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 two-parameter UI action tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers selection semantics well. It is still incomplete regarding no-match behavior and return/error expectations, which an agent may need in order to invoke it confidently.

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 description must define the parameters, and it does: 'text' is the label/name to match, with a clear exact-first-then-contains rule, and 'index' selects among multiple matches starting at 0. It also links index ordering to iphone_list_elements, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 states a specific action—tap an element by text—and explains the matching rule (exact label/name first, then substring). This clearly distinguishes it from coordinate-based iphone_tap and from listing tools such as iphone_list_elements.

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 matching algorithm implies when this tool is appropriate: when the caller knows the visible text of the target. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer iphone_tap or what to do if no element is found, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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