Swipe Screen

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation destructiveHint: true. It does not explain what side effects a swipe might have, whether it triggers scrolling or navigation, or how it interacts with the app's UI. The burden is partially on the annotation, but the description itself contributes nothing about potential consequences.

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, short sentence: 'Swipe on the screen.' It is concise and front-loaded with the key verb and object, with no wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, as it omits any context about direction or intended use, but it remains appropriately size for a simple gesture 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?

For a straightforward swipe tool, the description plus schema and annotations provide a minimally viable level of information. The schema explains parameters, and the annotation flags destructive potential, but the description lacks contextual guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings and what the effect will be on the app state. This leaves some gaps for an agent to reason about.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, including units, defaults, and how to discover device identifiers. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it relies on the schema, which is already sufficient. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 'Swipe on the screen' clearly states the action (swipe) and the target (screen), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling interaction tools like tap or long press, but the verb itself is distinct enough to convey the intended gesture.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mobile_click_on_screen_at_coordinates or mobile_long_press_on_screen_at_coordinates. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions specified, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the tool name alone.

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