game_touch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that events are simulated but does not explain coordinate interpretation, action sequencing (e.g., whether a press must precede a release), or how 'gestures' are composed. This is enough to signal input injection but too thin to predict 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and it names the core operation types succinctly. It is appropriately compact for a tool whose parameter details live in the schema, though it may be too compressed to convey gesture behavior fully.

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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves several operational gaps: coordinate space, action sequencing, multi-touch index semantics, and gesture scope. The 100% schema coverage mitigates parameter naming but not when or how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents all parameters, including action values and defaults. The description adds the context that operations are touch-related but contributes no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('simulate') and a clear resource ('touch press/release/drag and gestures'), which distinguishes it from mouse, keyboard, and scroll input tools. It does not enumerate which gestures are supported, but the action schema provides the main operation types. This is clear but could more explicitly scope the gesture set.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus game_click, game_mouse_drag, game_scroll, or game_mouse_move. The only differentiation is implicit in the word 'touch'. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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