read_tap_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the blocking wait behavior, the timeout, and the return details (type and direction). The main gap is that it does not state what happens when no tap occurs within the timeout (null, error, empty result), which is a key behavioral trait for an event-waiting tool.

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 concise and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a short explanatory note and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and return values. However, it is incomplete regarding the timeout outcome, which is essential information for an agent deciding whether to handle a failure or retry. This gap makes the definition not fully complete.

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?

The schema has no description for the timeout parameter (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining timeout as 'Maximum seconds to wait for a tap event' and confirming the default. This adds clear operational meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema.

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 what the tool does with a specific verb ('Wait for and detect') and resource ('tap events on the device'). The 'event-based sensor' characterization distinguishes it from the sibling read_* tools, which return current sensor values rather than waiting for events.

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 context by explicitly noting this is an event-based sensor that waits up to timeout seconds, implying it should be used when a blocking wait for a tap is desired. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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