screen_long_press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'bounded' and 'stationary', hinting at duration limits and lack of movement, but does not explain what 'bounded' means, what happens after the press, or whether any verification is involved. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no other safety context.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It front-loads the core action. However, it lacks any structured additional context, which slightly lowers the score from a perfect 5.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only provides a basic action statement. It fails to convey essential details like coordinate space expectations, duration bounds, the role of verify_change, or the possible side effects. This is completely inadequate for reliable usage.

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% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The terms 'bounded' and 'stationary' vaguely relate to duration and movement, but they do not clarify x, y, duration_ms, verify_change, or coordinate_space. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the action (long press) and qualifies it as 'bounded stationary', distinguishing it from simple taps or swipes. The verb 'perform' is specific and the resource is implicitly the screen, as inferred from the tool name. However, 'bounded' is ambiguous without further explanation, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like screen_tap or screen_swipe. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.

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