press

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and target methods; it does not disclose crucial behaviors encoded in the schema such as repeated presses (count), hold duration (holdMs), settle-and-diff behavior, doubleTap, or verification behavior. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 long, front-loaded with the action, and free of filler. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core operation and target forms, the second gives an actionable alternative.

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?

Despite having an output schema and full schema coverage, this is a highly complex 36-parameter UI-automation tool. The description does not explain execution context, how device/platform selection works, the effect of count/holdMs/settle, or post-action behavior. It is too minimal to be contextually complete for such a rich tool.

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 only a high-level summary of the three target kinds ('snapshot ref, selector, or coordinates'), which is already represented in the target oneOf schema. It adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Short-press a UI target by snapshot ref, selector, or coordinates.' It explicitly names the target-specification methods and differentiates from the sibling 'longpress' by identifying when to use the alternative.

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 provides an explicit conditional: 'Use longpress instead when the target requires a context-menu or hold gesture.' This gives the agent clear guidance on when to choose press versus longpress, satisfying the when-to-use and when-not-to-use test.

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