aua_tap

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: visual taps only the box center when located, rechecks surrounding pixels first, is disallowed in batch, ambiguity returns candidates plus a screenshot, and failed wait_for timeouts are never replayed. Those are the safety-relevant facts an agent needs for a mutating tool. It stops short of describing the response of a successful tap or what permissions/context are required.

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?

Information is front-loaded and each clause carries content, but the prose is compressed to the point of unreadability in places ("aua_locate args: Jev Box with the images opt-in", "never replays it") and mixes modes, error behavior, and context checks without structure. Restructuring into per-parameter sentences would lose nothing and gain clarity.

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 mutating, open-world tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: how targeting resolves, the ambiguity fallback (candidates + screenshot), post-action waiting, context validation, and the no-replay guarantee. The undeclared observe/variation parameters are a gap, but the agent can still call the tool correctly from what is written.

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 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it only partly does: it explains selector, x/y, visual (by reference to aua_locate args), wait_for, and observation_id, but never mentions the observe enum or the variation object. The wait_for semantics (visible/gone, timeout-not-replayed) and observation_id's runtime/app/display check are genuinely useful additions the schema does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and scope ("Tap once by selector OR x/y display pixels OR visual") and names the three targeting modes, which separates it from siblings like aua_double_tap and aua_long_press. The clarity is dented by garbled phrasing ("Jev Box with the images opt-in"), which reads like an unresolved template variable and forces the agent to guess what visual targeting actually requires.

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?

It gives mode-selection guidance (selector vs pixel vs visual) and a negative constraint ("never in batch"), which is real usage information. However, it never states when to prefer this over aua_double_tap, aua_long_press, or aua_locate directly, and no prerequisites or preconditions are spelled out.

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