Tap

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only the coordinate interpretation convention, saying nothing about whether the tap blocks, waits for element visibility, error conditions, or that it mutates UI state; an output schema exists so return values are at least covered.

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?

Two terse sentences with no padding beyond the redundant "Tap." opening. The substantive coordinate rule is stated directly and is easy to front-load on.

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 UI-mutation tool with zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and three close sibling tools (tap_node, tap_anchor), the definition is too thin. It omits the device parameter, selection guidance, and any behavioral context, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 must compensate. It usefully explains x/y as screen fractions in [0,1] or pixels and marks fractions as preferred, but the third parameter, device, is never mentioned in either schema or description.

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?

"Tap." simply restates the tool name, so the description itself is tautological. The only substantive content is coordinate formatting, and it never distinguishes this coordinate-based tap from the near-identical siblings tap_node and tap_anchor.

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 explains a parameter format preference (floats over pixels) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over tap_node, tap_anchor, or swipe. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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