nanokvm_tap

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 that coordinates are screen pixels based on NANOKVM_SCREEN_WIDTH and NANOKVM_SCREEN_HEIGHT, but it omits details about the tap action itself (e.g., press-and-release sequence, pointer movement, or side effects).

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, coordinate system, and parameter meaning. The presence of an output schema likely covers return values. It lacks usage guidelines and explicit side-effect disclosure, but overall is largely complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides complete parameter semantics: x and y are explained with origin (0 at left/top) and bounds derived from environment variables. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 performs a tap at a specific screen position and mentions touchscreen/mouse emulation, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling nanokvm_click, but the action is still unambiguous.

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 alternatives like nanokvm_click or nanokvm_move. The description does not provide context on prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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