ppsspp_wait_frames

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

The description explicitly says 'STATE-CHANGE' and that the emulator 'advances N frames,' while annotations declare idempotentHint=true. Repeatedly waiting N frames advances emulator state cumulatively, so this is an Annotation Contradiction.

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 labeled PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS sections, front-loading the key purpose and call contract. Every sentence is informative 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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, call requirements, behavioral effect, session validation, and return shape. It is nearly complete, but the unresolved idempotency contradiction could confuse an agent about repeated-call semantics.

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 frames, interval, and session_id. The description restates required fields and the default 1/60 s interval but adds no substantial meaning beyond the schema, meeting only the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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?

PURPOSE states a specific operation—'Wait N frames'—with timing semantics ('wall-clock sleep at 60 FPS by default') and the intended effect ('let the emulator advance'). This clearly identifies the tool's role and distinguishes it from sibling stepping or breakpoint-wait operations.

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 specifies the required arguments ('session_id + frames required; interval optional') and the default interval, which tells an agent how to invoke it. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like ppsspp_step, ppsspp_batch_step, or ppsspp_wait_breakpoint, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.

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