tap

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: auto-dismissal of the keyboard if the target is masked by it, which is not fully captured by the parameter default. However, it does not describe error handling, what happens when multiple identification methods are provided, or the return value (no output schema). With no annotations, the description carries the burden but covers only partial behavior.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information (action, platform, methods, keyboard behavior). There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple tap tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate core context but misses details like coordinate system (absolute vs relative), recommended identification method priority, and conflict resolution. The sibling tools list includes related gestures, but the description does not clarify when to use tap over long_press or swipe.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that 'index' comes from get_ui_tree, which is helpful, but this is implicit from the schema description. The auto-dismiss keyboard default is also described in the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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), the target (element of screen), and three identification methods (index, coordinates, text). It also specifies platform support (iOS and Android). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like long_press or swipe, though the verb 'tap' implies the basic action.

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 such as long_press, swipe, or type_text. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate. The user must infer usage from the tool's name and basic action.

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