tap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (tap at coordinates) but does not disclose side effects, screen state requirements, coordinate origin, or error behavior. This is a minimal transparency level for an input-injection action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's core purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (tap at coordinates with two integer params), the description is nearly complete. It covers the essential semantic of pixel coordinates, though it omits coordinate origin and any return value context. Still, with an output schema present and a straightforward action, it is sufficiently comprehensive for most use cases.

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 clarifies that x and y are 'exact pixel coordinates' on the device screen, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare integer definitions. However, it does not specify the coordinate origin (e.g., top-left), which leaves some ambiguity.

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') and the specific resource ('device screen'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like tap_element by emphasizing 'exact pixel coordinates'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tap_element or swipe. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for when coordinate-based tapping is preferred.

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