ios_tap

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that taps on actions like Send, Pay, or Delete require approval first. This gives the agent a concrete sense of the tool's risk profile beyond the raw annotation.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by two high-value usage warnings. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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's 7 optional parameters, destructive annotation, and output schema, the description covers the key decision points: what it does, what it returns, how to identify the target, and when extra approval is needed. It stops just short of being fully complete by not contrasting with sibling interaction tools, but that is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining why `ref` is preferred over `target`—it is exact and cannot be misread—and by tying approval requirements to certain tap targets, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 action ('Tap an element') and the result ('return the resulting screen'), identifying the specific resource and behavior. It is distinct from sibling tools like ios_press_button or ios_type, which target different interaction styles.

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 gives practical guidance on preferring `ref` over `target` and warns about approval-required taps, which helps with invocation. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like ios_press_button, ios_scroll, or ios_type, so the usage context is implied rather than fully stated.

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