adb_a11y_touch_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions read-only behavior (list, highlights) and the 48dp standard, but lacks details about side effects, permissions, or Android version requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 action and purpose, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return format. It mentions 'list all interactive elements' but does not specify the structure (e.g., list, table). This is a gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra value by connecting 'belowMinOnly' to the highlight behavior, but this is already implicit in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'interactive elements with their touch target dimensions', and specifies the purpose of identifying cramped layouts. It distinguishes from sibling tools like adb_a11y_audit and adb_a11y_tree.

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 usage for identifying cramped UI layouts, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among sibling accessibility tools. Only implied context.

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