tap_element

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose something genuinely useful: the touch point is measured, so results hold regardless of Safari's bars or the on-screen keyboard. It says nothing about failure behavior when the selector matches nothing, whether it waits for the element, or what is returned.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the parenthetical caveat placed after it. The parenthetical is informative rather than filler, though the phrasing is slightly wordy.

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 five-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the mechanics but leaves out error/edge-case behavior (missing element, multiple matches, interaction with the wait parameter) that an agent would need in order to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including page, wait, index, scroll) are already documented in the schema. The description's only added semantic is that the tap targets the element's center, which is a small but real supplement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: tapping the middle of a page element by CSS selector, with the notable detail that it produces a real touch at a measured screen position. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling tap_css (or from tap/tap_px), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these to pick.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over tap, tap_px, or tap_css, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only implicit signal is that it works on page elements rather than raw coordinates.

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