appium.tap_by_text

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description includes safety tags '[approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous]' and discloses the matching fallback strategy. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond what a schema would show, though it omits details like failure behavior and waiting.

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 a single sentence with the most critical safety information front-loaded in tags. It is concise, non-redundant, and earns its place without verbosity.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and matching logic, but leaves out details about timeout behavior, matchMode values, and what happens if no element is found. This is adequate but not complete for a dangerous operation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains 'text' implicitly and hints at matching behavior, but does not clarify 'matchMode', 'timeoutMs', 'serverUrl', or 'sessionId'. The description adds minimal value for the other three optional parameters.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Tap', the resource 'visible element by text', and the behavior 'exact-first matching before contains fallback'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tap_by_accessibility_id and tap_by_resource_id, which use different locators.

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 implies this tool is for tapping elements identified by text, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist for different locators, but no guidance is given on selection criteria.

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