Tap Screen

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states the basic action but omits details such as bounds checking, device connectivity requirements, or what happens on invalid coordinates. The schema partially covers the device parameter, but the description adds no extra transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and a critical usage hint. No wasted words or irrelevant details.

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 many sibling tools, the description covers the core functionality and cross-references a related tool. It is adequate but could improve by noting coordinate system origin or potential failure modes, though the schema already details device selection.

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% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (x, y, device). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 action: tapping the screen at specific pixel coordinates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'android_double_tap' and 'android_long_press' by specifying a single tap, and 'android_tap_element' by operating on raw coordinates.

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 advises using 'android_list_elements' to obtain coordinates, providing a clear workflow for correct usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the advice implies this is for direct coordinate-based tapping rather than element selection.

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