android_uiautomator_long_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('long click') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as duration of the long click, error handling if the element isn't found, whether it requires the app to be in the foreground, or any side effects like UI changes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 ('Perform a long click') and specifies the target ('UI element by resource ID'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover key aspects like what constitutes a 'long click' (e.g., duration), error scenarios, or expected outcomes, leaving gaps that could hinder correct agent usage.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (resourceId and deviceSerial). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying resourceId is used for targeting the element, but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Perform a long click') on a specific resource ('UI element by resource ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like android_uiautomator_click (regular click) and android_uiautomator_double_click. It uses precise verb+resource language without being tautological.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'UI element by resource ID,' suggesting it's for interacting with Android UI elements identified by IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like android_touch or android_uiautomator_click, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing UI visibility or device connection.

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