Tap And Wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the key trait that the call blocks until the UI is idle for `idle` seconds, which is genuinely useful. It omits other relevant traits such as whether the tap target must already be on screen, device routing, and what happens if no idle state is reached.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler that names the action, the target types, and the wait condition in order. Brief, though the brevity trades off against the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the core wait semantics are stated. But for a mutating tap with zero annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is only minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains `idle` ('idle seconds') and hints at `target` accepting a text string or a node object. The `device` parameter and the accepted target formats are undocumented, leaving part of the gap unfilled.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Tap a text (or node)') plus the distinctive wait behavior, so an agent can distinguish it from plain `tap` by the settle-after-action semantics. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like `tap_text`, `tap_node`, `wait_for_idle`, or `open_and_settle`.

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 when-to-use guidance is given despite a crowded sibling set of tap and wait tools (`tap`, `tap_text`, `tap_node`, `wait_for_idle`, `open_and_settle`). The agent must infer that this is the combined tap-then-settle variant purely from the name.

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