adb_input_double_tap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool triggers zoom, text selection, or other double-tap gestures, and that the interval is configurable. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., no action if no listener), error conditions, or whether the tool returns any result. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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: two sentences that immediately convey the action, effect, and key parameter (interval). No redundant information. It is front-loaded with the most important information for tool selection.

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?

The tool has a simple action and four parameters, all documented. The description adequately explains what the tool does and its effect. However, it does not discuss return values (no output schema) or error conditions, and with many sibling tools, additional context for selection would be beneficial. It meets minimum viability but has room for improvement.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what is in the schema; it merely reinforces the interval concept. It does not elaborate on device or coordinate semantics.

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 (double tap), the target (point on screen), and the purpose (triggers zoom, text selection, or double-tap gestures). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like adb_input_long_press (long press) and adb_tap_element (single tap) by explicitly mentioning 'double tap' and 'two rapid taps'.

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 when to use this tool (to perform a double-tap gesture) and mentions configurable interval, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like single tap or long press. In a large sibling set, explicit guidance on when not to use it would improve clarity, but the current text is sufficient for a single-purpose tool.

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