adb_tap

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does state the core side effect (tapping a point), coordinate semantics, and device auto-selection when a single device is connected. However, it does not disclose failure behavior when multiple devices are present and no device is specified, or any other details about the tap lifecycle.

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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the action and then listing parameters in a readable Args block. Every sentence contributes useful information 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 coordinate-tap tool, this is nearly complete: all parameters are semantically explained Becker, output schema exists to cover return values, and device handling is stated. It could be slightly stronger by noting the coordinate origin or multi-device failure mode, but nothing essential is missing 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?

The schema provides only types and defaults, while the description adds real meaning: x and y are pixel coordinatesasi, and device is an optional serial number with auto-selection behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action ('Tap') on a specific resource ('Android device screen') and grounds it in pixel coordinates. This immediately differentiates it from siblings like adb_swipe, adb_key, and adb_type_text.

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 intended use is implied: tap at a pixel coordinate on the screen. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like adb_swipe or app_click, nor any when-not-to-use or exclusionary conditions beyond the device auto-selection note.

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