iphone_long_press

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

由于没有提供任何注解，描述必须承载全部行为披露负担，但它只说明了动作。它没有提到长按持续多久，也没有说明长按会触发什么（上下文菜单、拖拽开始等），并且没有说明重复长按同一位置会有什么影响。

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?

整个描述是一句话，没有冗余措辞，但它过于简短，而不是精确；其简洁是以遗漏而不是以效率实现的。

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?

一个接受 7 个参数、没有注解也没有输出 schema 的交互工具，需要明确其效果和返回行为，但描述只覆盖了坐标动作。对于智能体来说，关键缺失信息包括持续时间语义，以及操作后捕获数据的含义。

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?

输入 schema 的描述覆盖率约为 86%，因此 then、then_filter、then_region 和 then_settle 已经由 schema 本身充分说明。描述没有为其中任何参数补充含义，因此在 schema 承担主要说明工作时，按基线 3 分是合适的。

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?

该描述明确给出了具体动作和资源——在屏幕坐标处执行“长按”——并且“长按”这一措辞将其与 iphone_tap 区分开。它没有明确提到任何同级工具，但动作本身在语义上已经清楚。

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?

描述中没有说明何时应使用长按而不是 iphone_tap 或 iphone_swipe，也没有说明前提条件（例如是否要求前台有 App），也没有给出长按典型用途的示例。

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