longpress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves—e.g., whether it waits for UI updates, what happens if the target is invalid, or if it triggers any side effects. This lack of transparency increases risk of unexpected outcomes.

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 clear sentence, making it very concise. However, it front-loads the core action and targeting methods, which is good. It could be improved by adding a brief structure (e.g., separating targeting methods) but is not overly long.

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 complexity (21 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or how to combine parameters (e.g., 'target', 'device', 'durationMs'). An AI agent cannot fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly without more context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like 'durationMs' or 'depth' interact with the long press action. While the schema is self-sufficient, the description misses an opportunity to clarify parameter usage context.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'long press' action on a UI element, and specifies three targeting methods (ref, selector, or point). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'click', 'scroll', or 'swipe', which are different gestures. The verb 'long press' and resource 'by ref, selector, or point' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'press' or 'gesture'). It does not specify prerequisites, constraints (e.g., element must be long-pressable), or when not to use it. Without such context, an AI agent may misuse the tool or choose a less appropriate one.

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