Device Touch Input

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, is open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that interaction occurs over SSH and that tap/swipe inject events, which is modest additional context but does not cover side effects, device requirements, or failure 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, cleanly presenting the two main capabilities. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the larger completeness gap.

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 the tool's high complexity (14 parameters), low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is far too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, side effects, and device/prerequisite details that an agent would need to invoke it accurately.

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 low at 36%, and the description does not compensate: it repeats the action categories already covered by the enum description while saying nothing about the many coordinate, timing, or device-path parameters. For a 14-parameter tool, this leaves substantial ambiguity.

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 specific actions (discover, tap, swipe) and the target resource (touchscreen input device) over SSH. It clearly distinguishes the two operational modes, though it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling sailfish_device_touch_workflow.

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 implies that discover and tap/swipe are alternative modes, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the touch workflow sibling or when-not to use it. No prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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