swipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but fails to explain critical traits: whether this requires a connected device, if it's destructive (e.g., could trigger unintended actions), what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This leaves the agent guessing about operational risks and constraints.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning 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?

Given the complexity of a screen interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, prerequisites), usage context relative to siblings, or result expectations (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a tool that could have side effects, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all parameters (coordinates, duration, device ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining coordinate systems (e.g., pixel-based, relative), typical duration values, or device ID usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('perform a swipe gesture') and the target ('on the screen'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'scroll_to_element' or 'tap', which are also screen interaction tools in the sibling list, leaving room for confusion about when to choose swipe over those.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tap', 'scroll_to_element', or 'press_key' from the sibling list. It lacks context about typical use cases (e.g., navigating, scrolling) or prerequisites (e.g., needing a device connected), offering only a basic statement of function without practical application advice.

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