gesture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a success or error message, which is helpful, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether the gesture is executed immediately, if it requires specific device states, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that performs device interactions.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, using bullet-like formatting. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains parameters without unnecessary details. However, the example points format could be slightly more concise, and it lacks a brief usage context sentence.

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 the tool's complexity (device gesture execution), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates a string return, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and mentions the return type, but misses behavioral details like execution timing, device requirements, or error handling, which are crucial for safe and effective 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'duration' is in milliseconds and 'points' is a list of coordinate objects with example syntax, clarifying the structure and units that the schema alone does not provide. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose as 'Execute a single-finger gesture', specifying the action (execute) and resource (gesture). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'swipe' or 'click' by focusing on custom gesture execution, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swipe', 'click', or 'gestures'. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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