element_touch

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 only says 'trigger' touch events, without revealing whether these are synthetic dispatches, whether they wait for handlers, or any side effects. No additional behavioral context is given, limiting the agent's understanding of consequences.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and event types. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or vague language. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the role of touches/changedTouches, how to structure the event data, or what happens after triggering. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), but the tool description itself adds no meaning to any parameter. The required element_id lacks a description and the description does not compensate. The agent must infer semantics from the schema alone, which is insufficient for the events' details.

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: triggering element touch events, listing the specific event types (touchstart/touchmove/touchend) and the resource (element). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like element_tap or element_longpress by focusing on raw touch events.

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 does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context where a different event simulation (tap, longpress, trigger) would be more appropriate. The agent is left without direction for selection.

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