Swipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add genuine behavioral context about the two coordinate frames. However, it omits the gesture duration semantics (`ms` defaults to 300), whether the call blocks until the swipe completes, and what happens with out-of-bounds coordinates or a missing `device` — all material for an input-injection tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 the core action first and the coordinate-space caveat second; no wasted prose. Slightly dense at the end, but the structure serves the reader.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that need not be described. But for an 8-parameter, unannotated interaction tool, the definition leaves device targeting, timing, and failure behavior unaddressed — enough gaps that an agent could call it correctly only by guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate for 8 parameters. It explains the meaning of x1/y1/x2/y2 and how image_width/image_height switch the coordinate space, which is real added value, but leaves `ms` (duration) and `device` (target selection) completely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb (swipe) plus the exact endpoints (from one point to another) and the coordinate frame, so an agent knows precisely what gesture is performed. It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling `scroll`, which is the most likely source of ambiguity in this toolset.

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 statement of when to prefer `swipe` over `scroll`, `tap`, or `long_press`, nor any prerequisite context (device must be attached, app in foreground). The only conditional guidance is about coordinate systems, which is parameter behavior rather than tool selection.

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