click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious behavior that 'right'/'middle' buttons map to a long press, but omits other important traits: what 'count' does (multi-click?), how 'device' is used, coordinate origin, and whether the call blocks or returns anything.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words. The second sentence is terse but earns its place by surfacing a non-obvious mapping, though 'Right/middle' is slightly ambiguous phrasing.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this description is under-specified. It covers the coordinate and button mapping but is silent on count, device selection, coordinate origin, and return behavior, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for 'x'/'y' (absolute screen coordinates) and hints at 'button' semantics, but leaves 'count' (1–10) and 'device' (nullable, default null) completely unexplained.

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 ('Tap') and resource ('absolute screen coordinate'), making the operation immediately identifiable. It avoids confusion with keyboard, screenshot, or devices siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 'mouse', which could plausibly overlap.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'mouse' or 'adb_command', nor are prerequisites (e.g., active device connection) stated. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Tap an absolute screen coordinate'.

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