press

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful timeout behavior and the existence of a caller-supplied budget, but it does not describe expected side effects, safety implications of pressing arbitrary UI elements, or whether this is a low-level input injection vs. a semantic click. That leaves a notable transparency gap for an interaction tool.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose first, alternative second, timeout behavior third. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 a complex 28-parameter schema but full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides the core invocation contract: short-press action, target forms, key alternative, and timeout behavior. It could add more orientation about device resolution or optional verification modes, but the schema already supplies those details sufficiently.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the description is not obligated to re-explain parameters. It does restate the three target forms, but those are already encoded in the target oneOf schema, so it adds little beyond the structured definitions.

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 names a specific verb ('Short-press'), the resource ('UI target'), and the three supported targeting mechanisms ('snapshot ref, selector, or coordinates'), which map directly to the schema. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling longpress by clarifying this is the short-press variant.

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 explicitly states when to prefer longpress instead: when the target 'requires a context-menu or hold gesture.' This is a direct, actionable when-not/alternative rule that helps an agent choose between two closely related tools.

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