ppsspp_hold_buttons

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

The description explicitly identifies the operation as a STATE-CHANGE and reveals that the held state persists until a subsequent hold_buttons or send_analog call, which is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation hints. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false is consistent with setting state), though it could add more detail about release semantics.

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 compact and uses labeled PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS sections that are easy to scan. Every line adds operational information, and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema documentation and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, state persistence, and return shape. It is slightly less complete because the explicit method to release (empty combination / press_button) is left to the schema rather than stated in the description.

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 100% and the schema already documents the button names, separator, and release behavior. The description essentially restates the format and required params without adding meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline rather than a higher score.

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 specific action ('Hold') and resource ('combination of PSP buttons') and clarifies the distinguishing persistence behavior via 'until a subsequent call changes the state.' It does not explicitly name related sibling tools like ppsspp_press_button, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

USAGE describes required parameters and the pipe-separated button format, and BEHAVIOR explains that the hold persists until another hold_buttons/send_analog call, giving clear context for when to use a hold rather than a momentary input. It does not explicitly say when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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