tap

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only describes input modes and does not explain what happens when both label and x/y are provided, whether coordinates are absolute or relative pixels, how platform affects behavior, or any error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool that directly performs a UI action.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loads the core verb and resource. It wastes no words and immediately conveys the essential purpose. This is an example of efficient minimalism.

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 with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the platform parameter, the precedence between label and x/y, or the outcome/return value. The low complexity of the action is offset by these unanswered questions, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains label (a string identifier) and x/y (coordinates) as alternatives, but omits the 'platform' parameter entirely, leaving its purpose and valid values unclear. The example for label helps, but the coverage is incomplete.

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's function: to tap a UI element by either a label (e.g., 'Go to next screen') or x/y coordinates. It uses a specific verb ('Tap') and implies the resource (on-screen element), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other actions like logging, profiling, or screenshotting.

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 indicates two usage modes—by label or x/y—but offers no guidance on when to prefer one over the other, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. Context is implied but not explicit, so it meets the 'implied usage' level rather than providing clear instructions.

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