pt_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 states the core action (tap) and implies a one-time screen interaction. The instruction to use pt_list_elements first adds workflow context. It does not mention the duration parameter's effect (long press), but that is already documented in the schema, and the description's simplicity matches the tool's straightforward nature.

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, consisting of exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the function, and the second provides a practical usage hint. There is no redundant or verbose content; every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly identifies the action and provides a necessary workflow pointer. It does not explain the optional udid or duration, but the schema covers these fully. The description could mention the long press capability, but it's not a critical omission for an agent selecting the 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions x and y coordinates but does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. The optional parameters (udid, duration) are not addressed in the description, but the schema fully explains them, so the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 tool's function: tapping on the screen at specified (x,y) coordinates. It uses a specific verb ('Tap') and resource ('screen'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pt_swipe (swipe) and pt_list_elements (list elements). The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name and parameters.

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 to use pt_list_elements first to obtain coordinates before tapping. This tells the agent the recommended workflow and prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like pt_swipe, though the distinct action type implies this.

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