tap_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that matching is substring-based and that the first match is tapped, but it says nothing about failure when no element matches, timeout behavior, whether tapping mutates state, or what observation follows the tap.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to gaps elsewhere.

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?

The tool has four parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, and the description covers only the matching semantics of one parameter. The output schema means return values need not be described, but the missing timeout, exact-match, observation, and failure behavior leave the definition substantially incomplete for a UI interaction 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain the four parameters. It adds useful meaning for 'text' by clarifying substring and content-description matching, but it does not explain 'exact', 'max_wait_ms', or 'observe_after' at all.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Tap', and a specific target: the first element whose text or content description contains the supplied text. This clearly distinguishes it from coordinate-based 'tap' and text-entry 'type_text'. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, which keeps it just 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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with siblings such as 'tap' or 'wait_for'. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the one-sentence behavior statement.

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