inspect-and-tap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'best available locator' which suggests some intelligent selection logic, but doesn't explain what makes a locator 'best', error handling, whether it retries failed locators, or what happens if the element isn't found. For a tool with potential complexity, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without waste. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though it could benefit from additional context about when and how to use it.

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 tool that combines inspection and action with potential complexity (selecting 'best available locator'), the description is inadequate. No annotations exist, no output schema is provided, and the description doesn't explain what happens after tapping, error conditions, or performance characteristics. Given the rich sibling tool ecosystem, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'selector' and 'strategy' interact, or how 'preferredOrder' influences the 'best available locator' logic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('inspect an element' then 'tap') and specifies the resource ('using one locator' and 'best available locator'). It distinguishes from simpler tools like 'tap-element' by combining inspection and tapping, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'inspect-and-act' which might have similar functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tap-element', 'smart-tap', or 'inspect-and-act'. The description implies it's for tapping after inspection, but doesn't specify scenarios where this combined approach is preferred over separate inspection and tapping steps.

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