long_press

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the need for precise coordinates and references another tool, it doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally (e.g., simulates a long press gesture on a simulator, requires the simulator to be running, might have timing constraints, or what happens if coordinates are invalid). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides critical usage guidance. There's zero waste, and the most important information (what the tool does and how to use it correctly) is front-loaded.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good guidance on coordinate sourcing but lacks information about the simulatorUuid parameter, behavioral details, or what happens after execution. It's adequate for basic usage but has clear gaps for a tool that interacts with simulators and requires multiple inputs.

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 mentions 'specific coordinates' (mapping to x and y) and 'duration (ms)' (mapping to duration), providing semantic meaning for 3 of the 4 parameters. However, it doesn't explain the simulatorUuid parameter at all, leaving one parameter completely undocumented. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 specific action ('long press') with precise resources ('at specific coordinates for given duration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tap', 'swipe', or 'gesture' which involve different interaction patterns. It explicitly mentions the coordinate requirement and duration parameter, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for precise coordinates') and when not to use it ('don't guess from screenshots'), directly naming an alternative tool ('describe_ui') for obtaining coordinates. This clearly distinguishes it from other input methods and sets prerequisites for effective usage.

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