ppsspp_send_analog

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

The BEHAVIOR section explicitly labels this as a STATE-CHANGE operation, states that the position persists until the next send_analog call, and notes that it is not idempotent in effect. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations (which only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by explaining the persistence 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 well-structured with clear PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does and required parameters) is front-loaded.

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 value. With an output schema present and full parameter schema coverage, nothing critical is missing. It could slightly improve by noting whether the analog position resets on session end, but this is a minor gap.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds a concise summary of the coordinate system but does not add new information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Send') and resource ('analog stick position'), and precisely defines the coordinate semantics (x, y in [0, 255], 128 = center). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling input tools like ppsspp_press_button and ppsspp_hold_buttons by focusing on analog state rather than discrete button presses.

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 explicitly lists required parameters (session_id + x + y) and explains the value mapping (0 = full left/up, 255 = full right/down). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus siblings.

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