Swipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying the gesture's typical uses (scrolling, dismissing) and the percentage-based coordinate option, which implies a practical workaround for screenshots. This is meaningful value beyond the annotation, though it doesn't go into deeper side-effect details.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a sibling exclusion and a concise tips. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. This is exemplary brevity and structure.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite compact but covers the essential context: purpose, key alternative, and a practical note on coordinates. The schema fully documents parameters, and annotations handle safety. The description does not mention duration or serial, but these are self-explanatory in the schema. It is slightly less complete than a tool with more behavioral caveats, but adequate for a gesture 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 value by explaining the rationale for using percentage parameters ('safer when estimating positions from a screenshot image'), which is not present in the schema's parameter descriptions. This enriches the parameter's purpose beyond the literal field 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Swipe from one point to another (scrolling, dismissing).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'drag' via 'For drag-and-drop use drag instead.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from at least one closely related sibling.

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 an explicit alternative ('For drag-and-drop use drag instead') and adds practical usage guidance for screen percentages ('safer when estimating positions from a screenshot image'). However, it does not mention how swipe relates to the 'scroll' sibling, which might be a closer alternative for scrolling actions. This is a minor gap, so not a 5.

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