double_tap

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state the core behavior and intent, but it does not explain coordinate units/origin, serial targeting, or failure/response behavior. The core action is simple enough that this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence with a useful example and no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though the brevity leaves some semantic gaps.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. It omits serial semantics, coordinate system details, and any differentiation from sibling tap/long_press tools. The presence of an output schema helps return-value expectations but not call correctness.

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 needs to compensate. It clarifies that x and y are the coordinates where the double tap occurs, but it leaves the serial parameter completely unexplained and does not specify coordinate units or origin.

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 states a clear action (double tap) on a specific resource (coordinate x,y) and gives a concrete use case (image zoom). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tap/long_press tools beyond the tap count, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the example 'pl. kep nagyitasahoz/kicsinyitesehez' (e.g. for zooming an image), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over tap, long_press, or other input tools, nor any exclusions.

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