touch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention coordinate origin, duration semantics, whether the touch is a tap or press, or any side effects. The only behavior disclosed is the action itself, which is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score; the brevity is structurally fine but offers too little substance.

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?

Although the tool is simple, there are 4 parameters (3 required) and an output schema not shown. The description does not explain coordinate system, duration behavior, or expected return values. Given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, more context is needed for reliable invocation.

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 meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'absolute' means for x/y, how duration is interpreted, or what 'device' refers to. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 (touch) and the target (an absolute screen coordinate), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swipe and keyevent by specifying a direct touch at a coordinate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swipe or keyevent. The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be preferred.

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