tap

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether a failed tap waits, throws, or how timeout_ms behaves on failure), what happens if the target isn't found, or whether tapping triggers navigation/state changes. The timeout_ms parameter hints at fail behavior but isn't explained.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero wasted words. Purpose, default, and mode-switching mechanism are all covered efficiently. Well front-loaded with the primary action first.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, all documented, with enums), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the gesture variants and default behavior. However, it lacks guidance on topic interactions like tab-switching ambiguity resolution, failure behavior, and prerequisites, which would round out completeness for an interaction tool.

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 all three parameters. The description adds the default 'tap' mode and clarifies gesture usage, but provides no extra meaning beyond the schema—e.g., targeting syntax nuances beyond the examples already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the action (taps, long-presses, double-taps) targeting a widget, with a default behavior noted. It distinguishes the gesture variants from each other. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling interaction tools like drag_and_drop, scroll, or press_key, though the primary verb+resource ('taps a widget') is specific enough.

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 states the gesture parameter ('Use gesture to change') which helps select the mode. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like wait_for, assert, or explore_screen, and no context on prerequisites (e.g., whether the target must be visible, whether a prior start_app is required).

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