tap

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. While 'Tap' implies a user interaction action, the description doesn't specify what happens after the tap (e.g., does it wait for UI response?), whether it requires device connectivity, or any error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that performs device interaction.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every element ('Tap', 'at specific screen coordinates') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a device interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes successful execution, what errors might occur, or how this differs from similar tapping tools in the sibling set. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool invocation.

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 all parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

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 ('Tap') and target ('at specific screen coordinates'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tap_element' or 'tap_and_wait', which appear to serve similar tapping functions but with different approaches.

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_element' or 'tap_and_wait'. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no contextual direction for tool selection.

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