Double Tap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait—'both taps are issued concurrently so they land together'—but it does not mention outcome, failure behavior, effects on the device, or implications of null coordinates. This is too thin for a gesture tool with zero annotation support.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, containing no filler. The ambiguity of 'a mark' costs some clarity, but the structure is efficient.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, sparse schema metadata, and an output schema that is not explained, the description is under-specified. It fails to clarify what a 'mark' is, how device selection works, and what the tool returns or reports. An agent would need to guess at core invocation details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains x and y as coordinates and hints at a 'mark' alternative, but it does not connect 'mark' to som_id and never mentions the device parameter. Most of the four parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific action ('Double-tap') and target ('at (x, y) or a mark'), which distinguishes it from gesture siblings like tap and long_press. However, the phrase 'a mark' is ambiguous and is not explicitly tied to a parameter or sibling concept.

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 given about when to use double_tap versus alternatives such as tap or long_press. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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