ppsspp_wait_frames

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but the description states 'STATE-CHANGE. Sleeps the caller; emulator advances N frames.' This implies each call advances the emulator, so repeated calls with the same arguments would have additional effect, directly contradicting idempotentHint=true. Per the rules, this is an annotation contradiction, so score 1.

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 organized into PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence is concise and informative, with no wasted words.

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?

With annotations, a full output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the core operational context (state-change, session validation, return shape). It is adequate for invocation, though it lacks sibling differentiation, which is more properly a purpose/usage concern.

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 frames, interval, and session_id in detail. The description only restates that session_id and frames are required and interval is optional, adding no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Wait N frames ... to let the emulator advance.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name or differentiate from siblings like ppsspp_step or ppsspp_batch_step, 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?

The description lists required parameters (session_id + frames) and optional interval, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ppsspp_step or ppsspp_batch_step. Usage context is implied by the purpose, but there are no when/when-not conditions or alternatives named.

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