long_press

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 correctly indicates that the action is a sustained press at a coordinate in true device pixels for a configurable duration. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering system gestures) or failure modes, leaving a modest 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?

A single sentence that packs the verb, resource, key parameters, and use cases. Every phrase earns its lace, and the most critical information is front-loaded. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 basic paramers, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose, input meaning, and typical scenarios. It lacks an explicit return-value statement, but that's acceptable for a void action. The description feels complete enough for an agent to invove this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the meaning of 'true device pixels' and the 'duration' concept, but does not elaborate on serial or duration default beyond what the schema's 'Default 600' already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Press and hold a coordinate' with specific use cases—'context menus, drag handles, and long-press actions.' This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'tap','swipe','drog' by emphasizing sustained contact.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool ('for context menus, drag handles, and long-press actions'), guiding the agent toward appropriate user scenarios. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the use cases implicitly differentiate it from point-and-click or swipe actions.

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