android_long_press

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

Annotations already signal the operation is non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds no context about what a long press physically does — e.g., that it simulates a device-level touch-and-hold that may trigger context menus, enable drag-and-drop, or rearrange launcher icons depending on what sits at the coordinate. There is no annotation contradiction, but no behavioral value is added beyond the structured hints.

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 with zero waste and the key action front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification: it omits behavioral and parameter context that the surrounding schema lacks, so it is concise at the cost of usefulness.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, this description is the only prose an agent receives. It fails to mention coordinate units/origin, durationMs meaning, expected return value, or the side-effect profile beyond the annotations' flags. For a gesture tool with destructiveHint=true and 40+ siblings, this is incomplete.

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 carry parameter meaning. It confirms x/y are screen coordinates but does not explain units (pixels), coordinate origin (top-left), or — most importantly — that durationMs is the hold duration in milliseconds. The constraints (400–3000 ms) are meaningful without semantic grounding.

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 gesture type ('Long press') and a target resource ('screen coordinate'), which is a clear verb+resource pairing. The gesture is inherently distinct from sibling actions like android_tap, android_swipe, android_scroll, and android_ui_click. However, it does not explicitly contrast with its closest neighbor android_tap, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 offers no guidance on when to long-press versus when to tap, click, swipe, or scroll. With 40+ sibling tools including several gesture actions, the absence of any selection guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternatives leaves the agent to guess which tool fits the situation.

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