Tap Text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that matching is substring-based and that only the first match is tapped, but says nothing about failure behavior (no match, multiple matches, off-screen nodes), whether it waits for the node, or where on the node the tap lands. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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 tight sentence with the matching semantics front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the core selection rule. However, with no annotations and an undocumented 'device' parameter, an agent lacks the failure-mode and targeting details needed to call this reliably in edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'text' is a contains-match against text or description, but the 'device' parameter is left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 (tap) and resource (on-screen node) plus the matching rule: text/description contains the given string. An agent can distinguish it from coordinate-based 'tap' and node-id-based 'tap_node'. It stops short of naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 prefer this over 'tap', 'tap_node', 'find_nodes', or 'wait_for_text', nor any note about what to do when the text is not present. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and one sentence.

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