Tap node by visible text

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

Discloses significant behavior: internal UI dump, exact matching fields, bounding box tapping. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, which align with the mutating tap action. No contradiction; description adds value beyond annotations.

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 sentences cover purpose, mechanism, error conditions, and disambiguation. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. Missing return value (likely void or success indicator), but the core operation is well-covered. Could mention post-tap state handling.

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 already documents all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds context: 'text' matches text or contentDescription, 'contains' enables substring match. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema.

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 action: dumps UI, finds unique node by text or contentDescription, and taps its bounds center. It distinguishes from siblings like devilge_tap_resource_id by focusing on text matching. Error conditions are explicitly mentioned.

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?

Explicitly states when errors occur (0 or >1 matches) and provides guidance: disambiguate with more specific text or use 'contains' for substring match. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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