agent-droid-bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires device accessibility services, what happens on invalid coordinates, if it waits for UI response, or potential side effects. The schema's device_serial description adds some behavioral context about multi-device handling.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. Front-loaded with the core action, appropriately sized 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 3-parameter tool with no annotations but 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks context about Android-specific requirements, error conditions, or interaction patterns with sibling tools. The schema compensates for parameter documentation, but behavioral context is sparse.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying coordinate-based interaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained coordinate system orientation or tap duration.

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 specific action ('tap gesture') and target resource ('Android screen'), with precise scope ('at the given pixel coordinates'). It distinguishes from siblings like swipe_screen (continuous gesture) or press_key (keyboard input), providing unambiguous purpose.

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 implies usage context (Android device interaction) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like detect_ui_change or get_ui_hierarchy. However, the input schema's device_serial parameter description provides strong operational guidance about device selection and error handling, which compensates partially.

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