tap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Supports optional timing delays' which adds useful context about pre/post delay parameters. However, it doesn't describe what happens after the tap (e.g., UI response, error conditions, or whether this is a destructive action), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 three clear sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage guidance, and mentioning optional features. No wasted words, and the most critical information (what the tool does) comes 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has significant gaps. It explains the core action and how to get coordinates, but doesn't cover parameter details fully, behavioral outcomes, or error conditions. Given the complexity, it's minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description adds some value by mentioning 'coordinates' (mapping to x/y) and 'timing delays' (mapping to preDelay/postDelay). However, it doesn't explain the simulatorUuid parameter at all, leaving a critical parameter undocumented. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully address the 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 action ('Tap at specific coordinates') and resource (coordinates), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'touch' or 'button', but the coordinate-based approach is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 clear guidance on how to obtain coordinates ('Use describe_ui to get precise element coordinates') and warns against alternatives ('don't guess from screenshots'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools like 'touch' or 'button', which would be helpful for complete differentiation.

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