android_uiautomator_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'using UIAutomator' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if element not found), performance implications (e.g., waiting times), or side effects (e.g., potential app state changes). For a UI interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Click on a UI element') and method ('using UIAutomator'), with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward 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?

Given the complexity of UI automation (interactive, state-dependent) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on success/failure outcomes, error conditions, dependencies (e.g., UIAutomator setup), or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples beyond the schema's example). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Click on a UI element') and the method ('using UIAutomator'), with the resource ID as the targeting mechanism. It distinguishes from generic 'android_touch' by specifying UIAutomator-based clicking, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'android_uiautomator_double_click' or 'android_uiautomator_long_click' beyond the basic click action.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'android_touch' (general touch), 'android_uiautomator_double_click', or 'android_uiautomator_long_click'. The description implies usage for clicking by resource ID with UIAutomator, but lacks explicit context about prerequisites (e.g., device accessibility enabled) or comparative scenarios.

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