android_swipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful context: direction gestures are scroll-sized to the screen, 'down' moves content downward while the finger moves up, longer durations are gentler, and a screenshot can be returned. However, it does not disclose whether the action is synchronous, whether it can trigger navigation or other side effects, or any required session/device state.

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 compact two-part structure: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a concise argument list. Each line is informative and there is no filler. The most important scope information is front-loaded.

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 description covers all parameters and some behavioral nuances, but several gaps remain: the coordinate system is unspecified, the mutual exclusivity of direction and coordinates is only implied, and no mention is made of prerequisites like an active Android session or device selection guarantees. For a complex 9-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is solely responsible for parameter meaning. Every one of the 9 parameters is explained in plain terms, often with valuable detail: direction options and their semantics, coordinates as start/end points, duration gentleness, device default, and screenshot scale meaning. This goes well 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 verb ('Swipe or scroll') and the resource (screen/device), and immediately clarifies the two modes: by direction or by explicit coordinates. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like android_tap, android_type, and android_key without needing to inspect schemas.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use swipe versus alternatives such as tap or type. It explains how to configure the gesture but not under what circumstances an agent should choose this tool over a sibling. The only usage hint is the implied 'used when direction is omitted,' which is parameter-routing, not tool-selection guidance.

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