tap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that coordinates are in screenshot image pixel space (implying they come from the screenshot tool), but it omits prerequisites such as needing a selected/connected device and says nothing about what the tap does or whether results are reported.

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 short sentence with no waste, and the key qualifier (pixel coordinate space) is front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 simple two-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics. It nonetheless leaves out device-selection prerequisites and the relationship to the screenshot tool, which an agent needs to call it correctly in this multi-tool automation suite.

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%, with x and y documented only as untyped integers. The description adds the meaningful unit (screenshot image pixels), which is exactly the missing semantics, but it does not clarify origin, range, or whether coordinates are relative to a scaled screenshot.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Tap') plus the coordinate space it operates in ('screenshot image pixels'), which implicitly separates it from tap_element (element-based targeting). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource and scope are clear enough to select the tool without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer tap_element over raw pixel tapping. The usage is only inferred from the mention of screenshot pixels.

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