input_tap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (simulating a tap) and the target (the screen), but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral details such as coordinate-system origin, bounds, device screen state requirements, or error behavior. It meets the basic bar but adds little beyond a restatement of the function.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the parameter clarification is directly relevant. Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to invoke a tap correctly. The only notable gaps are the lack of coordinate-system details and differentiation from input_press, but these are minor for such a basic interaction.

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 provides only integer fields named X and Y with 0% description coverage. The description compensates minimally by explicitly stating that x and y are the coordinates of the tap, which is meaningful. However, it doesn't mention units, valid ranges, or whether coordinates are in pixels or relative to the screen origin.

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 states a specific verb ('Simulates a tap gesture'), a clear resource ('connected Android device screen'), and the location (specified x,y coordinates). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like input_swipe and input_roll, which involve different gestures.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as input_press or input_swipe. It implies usage by describing what a tap is, but it doesn't provide context, exclusions, or routing criteria. An agent must infer when a tap is the right action.

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