wavexis_tap

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific side effects: dispatches a touch tap, may toggle controls or trigger navigation on mobile-optimised pages. It also details the return format including error keys. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: first sentence defines the action, second gives usage guidance, third covers side effects and return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and return format. Output schema is implied by the description of the JSON return. While prerequisites (e.g., needing a page) are not explicitly stated, the session parameter handles this implicitly. Overall, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% meaning the tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. However, the schema itself has clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'CSS selector for element to tap'), so the agent can understand parameters from there. The tool description does not add extra meaning, scoring at baseline.

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 clearly states the tool taps an element using a CSS selector with touch emulation, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools wavexis_click (mouse-based) and wavexis_nl_click (natural language). The verb 'tap' is specific and action-oriented.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (touch-emulated click) versus alternatives (wavexis_click for desktop, wavexis_nl_click for NL description). This direct comparison leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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