webview_tap

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

The description mentions auto-waits and scrolls into view, which are useful behavioral details beyond what the schema provides. Since annotations are absent, this is a positive addition, but it doesn't cover potential failure modes or side effects of tapping.

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 a single sentence with the core action and key usage context. It's concise and front-loads the primary verb and resource, but it could be clearer about parameter specifics.

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 5 parameters, moderate complexity, and no output schema. The description covers main use cases and return value, but lacks details on error handling, edge cases, or the exact structure of the returned DOM. It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 schema has 40% coverage, with descriptions for text and device_id. The description adds meaning for css (from observe_webview) and match (target specific page), but package and device_id are not fully elaborated. It partially compensates for the schema gap, but not completely.

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 taps an element in a WebView using a css or text selector, distinguishing it from generic tap tools. It mentions returning the updated DOM and references observe_webview for context, which helps differentiate from siblings like tap_element.

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?

It instructs to use css from observe_webview and to pass match for a specific page, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over tap_element or other tapping tools, nor mention any alternatives.

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