gesture-custom

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, and it does so thoroughly. It explains coordination normalization, delay defaults, interpolate behavior, return values, platform-specific limitations on physical iOS, and failure conditions. This is exemplary transparency for a gesture automation 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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, alternatives, key parameter semantics, physical iOS caveats, return values, failure modes, and four illustrative examples. It is front-loaded with the most important routing information and organized so an agent can quickly understand when to use it and how to construct events.

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 output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns, when it fails, and how platform differences affect behavior. The examples cover the main complex gesture types and the interpolate option, making the tool's expected invocation and results fully understandable.

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?

Although the input schema already documents all parameters, the description adds substantial semantic meaning beyond that. It explains how to compose event sequences for long-press, drag, smooth scroll, and pinch, gives concrete examples, and clarifies the meaning of delayMs and interpolate in the context of real gestures. This goes well beyond the baseline schema-provided information.

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 function: sending a sequence of touch events for complex gestures. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming specific use cases like long press, drag-and-drop, custom scroll, and two-finger pinch, while also calling out simpler alternatives. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and easy to differentiate.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use for: long press, drag-and-drop, custom scroll, pinch' and then explicitly routes simple taps to gesture-tap, straight-line scrolling to gesture-swipe, standard pinch to gesture-pinch, and rotation to gesture-rotate. It also provides physical iOS-specific constraints and failure conditions, leaving little room for incorrect tool selection.

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