ppsspp_press_button

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it labels itself 'STATE-CHANGE', explains that the button returns to released after the duration, and the schema notes the call blocks and the 18000-frame cap. It stops short of noting anything about concurrent input or failure modes.

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 PURPOSE/USAGE/BEHAVIOR/RETURNS structure front-loads the essentials and is easy to scan. The button enumeration is duplicated from the schema, which is mild redundancy, but overall there is little waste.

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 3-param input tool with an output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, required inputs, mutation semantics, and duration behavior. The extra RETURNS line is redundant against the output schema, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (including button names, duration default/cap, and blocking behavior) thoroughly. The description largely repeats the button list and default already in the schema, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Simulate a single PSP button press for a duration.' An agent immediately knows what it does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling ppsspp_hold_buttons or ppsspp_send_analog, which are plausibly related input-simulation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It clearly states the required parameters (session_id + button) and that duration is optional with a default, which is useful invocation guidance. But it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like hold_buttons or send_analog, nor any prereq like requiring an active session. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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