tap_element

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 usefully discloses that verify compares the screen before and after and reports taps without effect, at the cost of two page-source reads. It does not cover failure behavior, but the performance caveat is valuable context beyond the raw operation.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and structured into a clear action line plus an Args section. Every sentence earns its place, including the cost note on verify.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the core requirements are covered: the action, the parameters, and the verify side-effect are all described. Minor gaps remain, such as locator syntax and explicit usage conditions, but nothing blocks a competent agent from invoking 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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: locator is the element to click, and verify is defined with its behavioral effect and cost. It stops short of specifying locator syntax formats, but it adds real meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 opens with a precise action verb ('Tap ou clic') and identifies the target resource ('un élément de l'application'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like type_text or go_back. The operation is unambiguous and immediately usable.

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 use this tool versus an alternative such as type_text, get_element_info, or find_elements. The description explains what the tool does but not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it.

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