android_click_element

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

The description discloses that it computes the center and executes a precise tap, which is useful. However, it does not mention failure behavior (e.g., element not found), whether it waits for the screen to stabilize, or that it is a mutating action. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and could be more thorough.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The key action and locator types are front-loaded, and the behavioral detail about center computation follows logically. Very efficient.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters with no required ones, yet the description does not clarify how to choose among them or what happens when multiple are provided. It also lacks details on error handling or return values, and there is no output schema. For a tool with ambiguous parameter usage, this is a significant gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond that, only restating that it uses text, content description, or resource ID. It does not explain how parameters combine or take precedence, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema covers semantics.

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 clear verb ('click') and resource ('UI element'), and lists three locator types. It implies it is element-based, distinguishing it from the coordinate-based android_tap sibling, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like android_tap or android_find_element. It doesn't state that android_tap is for raw coordinates or that this is preferred for element-based interactions. The context is implied but not explicit.

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