iphone_tap

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the tap waits for the UI to settle, what happens on out-of-bounds coordinates, or that extra data can be returned in the same call. The only behavioral hints (settle timing, chained element/screenshot returns) live in the schema, not the description.

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?

It is a single front-loaded clause with zero waste, but for a 6-parameter tool with chained post-action returns it is undersized rather than tight. Brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters including a non-trivial chained-return mechanism, the description should explain the settle-and-return behavior and the coordinate-space assumption. It leaves an agent unable to predict that a tap can also yield elements or a screenshot.

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 schema already documents x, y, then, then_filter, then_region and then_settle in detail. The description adds nothing beyond repeating the point unit already present in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: tapping screen coordinates in points. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the coordinate-based siblings (iphone_tap_element, iphone_swipe) by naming coordinates as the target, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer iphone_tap_element when a selector is available, or when coordinate tapping is the right fallback. The agent must infer the routing decision from the tool name alone.

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