Tap Anchor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the one non-obvious behavior: resolution order ('selector first, saved point as fallback'). However, it says nothing about what happens when the anchor is missing, whether the tap can fail silently, or the effect of timeout/device.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the ref syntax is presented before the resolution detail. It is arguably too terse for a 3-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves `device`, `timeout`, and failure behavior entirely unexplained. For a mutation action (~tap) this is under-specified.

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% across 3 parameters. The description explains only the `ref` value format ('map:name'); `device` and `timeout` (with its 3-second default) are undocumented in both schema and description, so compensation is only partial.

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?

Names a specific verb ('tap') and a specific resource ('a mapped anchor'), with the ref format 'map:name'. This is distinguishable from the bare `tap`/`tap_node` siblings by scope, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite `tap`, `tap_node`, `swipe`, and `save_anchor` being close siblings. The ref format implies a saved map must exist, but that inference is left to the agent.

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