Android interact

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only. The description adds valuable context: device content is untrusted, and the agent should never guess ambiguous controls or enter secrets. It also notes that non-ASCII text requires ADBKeyboard, which is a significant behavioral caveat beyond the schema.

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 sentence but packs the core actions and a critical safety warning. It is front-loaded with the primary verbs. The sentence is long but not redundant; it earns its length.

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 9 parameters, only 1 required, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the interaction types, output (fresh screenshot), and safety constraints. It does not explicitly mention device selection, but that is fully documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of all parameters with detailed descriptions, including normalization, required conditions, and defaults. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb ('Tap, type, press, drag, or scroll') and resource ('allowed Android target'), and specifies it returns a fresh MCP screenshot. It is distinct from specialized siblings like android_tap_element or android_tap_row because it targets raw coordinates/gestures, though it does not name these alternatives explicitly.

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 implies this is the general raw-input tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as android_tap_element or android_tap_text. The caution 'never guess an ambiguous control' gives some guidance but no direct 'use this when...' routing.

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