adb_tap_element

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it combines search and tap atomically and is reliable, but does not specify failure behavior (e.g., if element not found), permissions, or potential side effects. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, description covers the core behavior (search then tap) and provides practical context (reliability over coordinate taps). Could mention prerequisite of visible UI or error handling, but overall sufficient for agent selection.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, only listing the parameter alternatives. No extra meaning about parameter interplay (e.g., AND vs OR when multiple filters used). Baseline 3 per rules.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (tap) and the resource (UI element by text/resource-id/content-desc), distinguishes from coordinate-based taps (e.g., adb_input) and other sibling tools. The phrase 'Combines UI hierarchy search with input tap in one atomic operation' effectively differentiates it.

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?

Implicitly states when to use (dynamic layouts) and contrasts with coordinate taps, but does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use. With siblings like adb_input, adb_ui_find, adb_scroll_until, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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