Double-tap Android display

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent, closed-world). The description adds that both taps occur 'in one on-device script', which hints at atomicity and reduced round-trips, but says nothing about target-side effects, failure modes, or confirmation behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the gapMs definition immediately after. No filler, though 'Pass ref or x and y' is a bare fragment that could carry precedence detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the serial/displayId/ref semantics live in the schema. The description covers the main ambiguity (gapMs, ref-or-coordinates) but leaves x/y semantics to inference, which is a minor gap for this complexity.

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 coverage is only 50% and x, y, and gapMs have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by defining gapMs as 'the pause between the taps' and framing ref vs x/y as alternatives, but x/y coordinate space and units remain 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('inject two display-targeted taps at the same point') and clarifies the defining trait vs a single tap. It does not name mobile_input_tap as the sibling it supersedes, so discrimination relies on the agent inferring it from 'two taps'.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over calling mobile_input_tap twice, or when gapMs matters relative to mobile_input_long_press. 'Pass ref or x and y' is argument instruction, not usage context.

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