ui_tap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It adds constraints like 'uniquely resolved' and 'visible', and states that it 'verify[ies] the result', but it does not explain what happens on non-unique match, whether it waits for UI changes, or what 'verify' entails. This is a significant gap for a tap action.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, but it is so brief that it sacrifices essential details for the complexity of the tool.

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 complex schema (nested selector with many properties, 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify an element, what match_index means, how verify_change behaves, or what the return value represents. This is far below the minimum viable completeness for such a tool.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters (node_id, selector, match_index, verify_change) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any of these parameters, nor does it clarify how 'uniquely resolved' maps to selector or match_index. The nested selector structure is entirely undocumented in the description.

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 ('Tap'), the target ('one uniquely resolved visible semantic UI element'), and the follow-up ('verify the result'). This distinguishes it from coordinate-based taps like screen_tap and from pure lookup tools like ui_find.

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 phrase 'uniquely resolved' implies that the element should already be resolved, perhaps via ui_find, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. It does not tell the user when to choose this over screen_tap or how to resolve uniqueness.

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