Double 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, but it only restates the tool name. It omits whether the double-tap is synchronous, how long to wait, whether it requires an active device, or what side effects occur.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized for a four-parameter action tool.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description is not complete for a gesture tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters: usage alternatives, device semantics, and behavioral expectations are missing.

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% for four parameters. The description hints that x, y, and a mark (likely som_id) are inputs, but it leaves device completely unexplained and gives no coordinate system, range, or format for the mark.

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 states a specific verb and resource: double-tapping at coordinates or a mark. It is clearly distinguishable from unrelated siblings like volume_up or open_file, but it does not differentiate itself from tap, long_press, or tap_node, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use double_tap instead of tap, long_press, tap_node, or tap_text. No prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusion conditions are given.

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