tap

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tap is coordinate-based and where to obtain reliable coordinates, but it does not disclose coordinate origin/system, device requirements, side effects, or error behavior. For a simple input action this is borderline adequate, but not deeply transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler: it front-loads the action, then gives coordinate-sourcing guidance, then names the preferred alternative. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 low-complexity tap tool, the description covers purpose, core parameter semantics, and usage alternatives, while an output schema is already present. The main gaps are the unexplained 'serial' parameter and the lack of broader behavioral caveats, but these are relatively minor for this tool.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for x and y by identifying them as pixel coordinates and recommending the 'ui_dump center=' value as a source, which is important because schema coverage is 0%. However, the optional 'serial' parameter is never explained, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 Hungarian description uses a specific verb ('Koppintas' = tap) and resource ('a kepernyo (x, y) pixelkoordinatajan'), making it clear this tool performs a coordinate-based tap. It also explicitly names the sibling 'tap_element' as the alternative for text/resource-id based interaction, which helps distinguish the tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to source coordinates from the 'ui_dump' tool's 'center=' value, and further recommends using 'tap_element' instead when a text/resource-id exists. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance beyond the schema.

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