element_tap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It mentions simulating a click but does not specify whether it waits for visibility, the type of click (tap/long press), or any side effects. The waitMs parameter's role is unclear. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 composed of two concise sentences in Chinese, front-loading the main purpose and then adding details about index syntax and innerSelector. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested connection parameter, the description lacks details on waitMs behavior, connection requirements, and return values. It covers selector usage well but omits prerequisites and behavioral context, leaving the tool incompletely specified for autonomous use.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for selector (CSS selector with index syntax) and innerSelector (component-inside-element), explaining their relationship. However, it does not explain connection or waitMs, leaving those parameters unclear. It partially offsets the low schema 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 clearly states it simulates clicking a WXML element via CSS selector, distinguishing it from other element_* tools like element_input. It also details the [index=N] syntax and innerSelector for custom components, which clarifies its specific functionality.

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 description explicitly explains when to use innerSelector (for custom components) and how to set parameters. However, it does not compare to alternatives like element_callMethod or page_getElement, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Still, it provides good contextual guidance for its primary use case.

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