gesture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the gesture is 'structured' and that it times out after 90 seconds, but it does not describe the actual effects on the device UI, whether the gesture is recorded or replayable, what response the caller can expect, or what happens on failure. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that performs physical user interactions.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's capabilities, and the second sentence delivers the essential selection rule and a timeout constraint that the schema cannot express.

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?

The tool is high-complexity with 31 parameters, multiple device selectors, and several overlapping gesture types. The rich schema descriptions compensate for much of the missing kind-to-parameter mapping, but the description itself leaves that mapping implicit and does not address when to choose this tool over the dedicated 'swipe' sibling. This is 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?

The input schema already documents all 31 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by instructing the agent to provide only the inputs that apply to the selected gesture kind, which is critical conditional knowledge given the large number of gesture-specific parameters.

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 uses a clear verb ('Perform') and lists the specific gesture kinds: pan, fling, swipe, pinch, rotate, transform, and drag. It does not fully distinguish the tool from the sibling 'swipe' tool, which creates some ambiguity about whether 'gesture' with kind=swipe or the dedicated 'swipe' tool should be used.

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 gives a clear usage pattern: select the gesture kind, then provide only the inputs that apply to that kind. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over specialized siblings like swipe, scroll, click, or longpress, nor does it state any exclusions or preconditions.

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