swipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions default values for distance and duration, which is helpful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., could trigger unintended actions), error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a screen interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-like parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise by combining related parameters (e.g., grouping coordinate parameters).

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job explaining parameters but has gaps. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what the tool returns, error handling, or prerequisites. For a screen interaction tool with this complexity, more context about outcomes and constraints would be needed for full completeness.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: it explains that direction accepts specific string values, x1/y1/x2/y2 are for custom swipes, device_id is optional for targeting, and distance/duration have defaults with units. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 tool's purpose: 'Swipe horizontally or vertically on the Android screen.' This specifies the action (swipe) and target (Android screen). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scroll_element' or 'long_press' that also involve screen interactions, missing full sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose directional swipes versus custom coordinate swipes, or how this differs from similar sibling tools like 'scroll_element' or 'long_press' for screen interactions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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