gestures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions executing gestures and describes parameters, it doesn't explain what happens on the device, whether gestures are visible to the user, what permissions are required, or potential side effects. The return value description is minimal ('Success or error message').

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value, though the return value description could be slightly more informative. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description does reasonably well. It fully documents the single parameter and provides basic return information. However, as a device interaction tool that likely has side effects, more behavioral context would be helpful given the lack of annotations.

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 provides comprehensive parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It fully documents the single parameter 'gestures_data' including its list structure and the three sub-properties (delay, duration, points) with their types and meanings. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Execute multi-finger gestures' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It specifies 'multi-finger' which distinguishes it from simpler gesture tools like 'click' or 'swipe' in the sibling list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar 'gesture' sibling tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus simpler gesture tools, or what makes 'multi-finger' gestures different from other gesture capabilities in the sibling tools.

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