long_click

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. It mentions the action and coordinate parameters but doesn't describe what 'long click' means behaviorally (e.g., duration, visual feedback, system response), whether it requires specific permissions, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a UI interaction tool.

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 parameter and return value documentation. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more naturally rather than as separate labeled blocks, and some redundancy exists between the main statement and parameter explanations.

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 moderate complexity (UI interaction with coordinate parameters), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates a string return, the description provides adequate basics but lacks important context about the 'long click' behavior, error conditions, or practical usage examples that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 excellent parameter semantics beyond the bare schema. The input schema has 0% description coverage (just titles 'X' and 'Y'), but the description explicitly explains that coordinates can be 'absolute or relative 0-1', which is crucial context not present in the schema. This fully 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 clearly states the action ('Long click') and target ('at the specified coordinates on the screen'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'click' or 'gesture', though the 'long' modifier implies a duration difference from regular clicks.

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 'click' or 'gesture'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar operations in the sibling tool list.

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