long_press

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about what a long press does at the OS level (context menu, drag start, selection) or any side effects. It also omits that duration defaults to 1 second and is tunable, which materially changes the gesture.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally concise, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

Although the schema fully documents all four parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not address how this gesture differs from its many touch siblings, which is the main thing an agent needs to select it correctly. For a UI automation tool in this dense sibling set, that gap is significant.

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 100%, with x, y, duration, and device_id all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning, such as coordinate origin or units, beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific action (long press) on a specific target (coordinates), so the agent knows the operation is a sustained touch at an x/y point. However, it offers no differentiation from the very similar siblings tap and double_tap, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use long_press versus tap, double_tap, swipe, or pinch. In a sibling set full of overlapping touch gestures, the absence of any selection criteria leaves the agent to guess.

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