toggle_show_taps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool's function ('Show visual feedback for taps') and use case, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are persistent, potential side effects (e.g., performance impact), or what the output schema returns. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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—a single sentence with two clauses—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place by stating the action and context without redundancy. It efficiently communicates the essential information in a minimal format.

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 an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and use case but lacks details on parameters, behavioral nuances, and how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool with two parameters and no annotation support, more context would be beneficial to ensure proper usage.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't mention any parameters explicitly, but it implies the 'enable' parameter through the action 'Show' (which suggests toggling on/off). However, it doesn't explain the 'device_serial' parameter or provide details beyond basic inference. With low schema coverage, the description adds minimal value, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Show visual feedback for taps' indicates it controls a visual indicator for touch interactions. It specifies the context ('useful for demos/recordings'), which helps distinguish it from general tap-related tools like 'tap' or 'tap_element'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'toggle_show_layout_bounds', which is a similar visual toggle tool.

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 implies usage context ('useful for demos/recordings'), suggesting when this tool might be beneficial. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other visual feedback tools) or any prerequisites (e.g., device connection). The context is helpful but lacks specificity for sibling tool differentiation.

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