aua_double_tap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: partial execution on failure (the first click may already have landed) plus the rule not to replay. It also clarifies that interval excludes RPC latency, which matters for timing-sensitive UI. It stops short of describing the return payload or what happens if both selector and x/y are supplied.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its targeting modes, with the safety warning placed last. No filler, though the telegraphic phrasing leaves a few terms undefined.

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 9-parameter, non-read-only interaction tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky timing and failure semantics well but leaves most optional parameter groups (visual, variation, observation_id) unexplained. Adequate but not complete.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description carries real weight, and it does define interval units/semantics and confirms wait_for and observe are supported. It says nothing about variation, visual, observation_id, or the precedence rule when selector and x/y are both given, so most parameters 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?

Names a specific action (one intentional pair) with its two mutually exclusive targeting modes, selector or x/y display pixels, which is a real distinction agents need. It does not name aua_tap as the sibling it differs from, so the differentiation from a plain tap or long-press must be inferred.

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?

"One intentional pair" implies this is the semantic double-tap gesture rather than two separate taps, and "never replay automatically" gives failure-handling guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer aua_double_tap over two aua_tap calls or over aua_long_press, and no prerequisites.

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