long_press

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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as how long the press lasts, whether it requires device connection, what happens if coordinates are invalid, or if there are side effects like triggering UI actions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word 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 tool's complexity (a screen interaction with coordinates), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes success, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 description mentions 'specific coordinates' which implies the x and y parameters, but with 0% schema description coverage and 3 total parameters (device_id, x, y), it fails to explain parameter meanings. It doesn't clarify what device_id is for, coordinate units, or valid ranges, leaving significant gaps 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 ('long press') and target ('on specific coordinates on the Android screen'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'press' or 'swipe', which might also involve screen interactions.

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 'press' (which might be a short tap) or 'swipe' (which involves movement). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools, leaving usage context unclear.

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