chrome_tap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tap is a real touch event rather than a synthetic click, and that it is intended for TouchEvent-gated pages. However, it does not disclose side effects, focus/tab activation behavior, or what happens when targeting via selector vs coordinates.

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?

Two focused sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the key use case follows immediately, making it quickly scannable for an agent.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits essential context around coordinate semantics, selector vs x/y, target tab targeting, and return behavior, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool reliably.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Parameters like x, y, uid, and selector are left undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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: 'Dispatch a real touchstart/touchend tap through Chrome's input layer.' It also names the differentiating use case ('sites that gate on TouchEvent'), which separates it from siblings like chrome_click and chrome_click-like actions.

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 phrase 'Use for sites that gate on TouchEvent' provides a clear, explicit condition for when to select this tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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