ppsspp_press_button

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

The description explicitly states 'STATE-CHANGE' and that 'Button state returns to released after the duration elapses,' adding behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). It clarifies the non-idempotent nature and auto-release behavior, which is valuable.

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 tightly structured with PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS sections. Purpose is front-loaded, and each section is concise with no wasted words. It earns its place and is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return format. The output schema exists, so return values are also documented. The only gap is the conflicting default duration, but that's a schema/description mismatch rather than a missing aspect. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. However, the description incorrectly states 'default 10 frames' while the schema specifies 'default 1' – a factual contradiction that could mislead the agent. It also redundantly lists button names already in the schema, adding no new value.

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: 'Simulate a single PSP button press for a duration.' This distinguishes it from siblings like hold_buttons (which holds multiple buttons) and send_analog (analog input). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 USAGE section specifies required parameters (session_id, button) and optional duration, plus valid button names. It provides clear operational context but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like hold_buttons or send_analog. However, the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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