mobile_double_tap

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the core effect (double tap) and the return type (JSON response from the API). However, it does not describe failure modes, device-state requirements, or side effects beyond the tap gesture, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple three-parameter gesture tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value, and an output schema is available. It is still missing practical context such as expected device state and how the API response signals success or failure, so completeness 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: serialno comes from list_devices, and x/y are in device pixels. This adds meaningful semantics the schema alone does not provide.

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 action, 'Double tap at the given screen coordinates', with the target resource and coordinate-based input. It naturally distinguishes from sibling input tools like mobile_tap and mobile_long_press by naming a distinct gesture.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives such as mobile_tap, mobile_long_press, or mobile_swipe. The description only tells how to perform the action, not the selection context or any exclusions.

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