Tap

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action 'tap'. While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description does not explain side effects, whether the tap is immediate, or any required device state. The openWorldHint=true annotation suggests external effects, but the description does not elaborate.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, lacking key details like coordinate system and serial semantics, so it borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 complexity and the presence of an openWorldHint, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what happens after the tap, whether it returns anything, or how the serial parameter targets a device. The sibling tools provide context but the description itself leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'coordinates', implying x and y are coordinate values, but does not explain units, origin, or the purpose of the 'serial' parameter. This is minimal added value over the raw schema.

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 'Tap on screen at coordinates' uses a specific verb and resource, indicating a raw coordinate-based tap. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tapElement (which likely taps UI elements) and swipe/longPress. However, it lacks explicit mention that it's a raw screen coordinate tap, which could be clearer.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention cases like 'use when you have exact screen coordinates' or contrast with tapElement. The sibling list implies distinctions, but the description itself gives no usage context.

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