Long-Click-Tool

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 does disclose the core behavior: a long press lasting roughly one second. However, it does not mention coordinate origin, screen bounds, whether it waits for UI feedback, or any failure behavior, leaving some 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 one tightly written sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the use case is appended in a second short sentence, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple two-parameter input tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what to do, where to do it, how long to hold, and when it is useful. It lacks only minor context such as coordinate-system definition or explicit sibling differentiation, which would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'x' and 'y' represent the coordinates at which to long-press, which is meaningful. Still, it does not specify coordinate system, units, or screen-relative semantics, so the compensation is only partial.

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 a specific action ('Long-press') with a resource ('at (x,y)') and a duration ('for ~1 second'). It also gives a use case ('context menus or elements requiring sustained touch'), which helps distinguish it from ordinary taps. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like Click-Tool or Press-Tool, so differentiation is implied rather than direct.

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 phrase 'Use for context menus or elements requiring sustained touch' gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to infer the main use case.

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