bizhawk_hold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain that this holds a button down for a number of frames, whether it auto-releases, what happens if already held, or side effects. 'Wrapper' tells the agent to look elsewhere for behavior, but the referenced tool isn't documented here.

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?

It is extremely short (one fragment), so it's efficient in length. However, this is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — it's just unhelpfully brief.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 required parameters. The single sentence does almost nothing to help an agent understand invocation, expected behavior, or return. For a 'hold' operation (non-trivial input semantics) this is severely incomplete.

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 0% and there are 2 required parameters (button, frames) that are completely undocumented. The description adds zero parameter semantics — an agent has no idea what button values are valid or what 'frames' represents (duration? count?).

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 'GB-compatible wrapper for emulator_hold' vaguely references another sibling tool but never states what the tool actually does — it never mentions 'hold' behavior, buttons, frames, or input. For an agent choosing among 30+ emulator tools, this is opaque and essentially a tautology referencing a sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other bizhawk_* variants or the emulator_* originals. 'GB-compatible wrapper' implies it targets Game Boy, but it doesn't explain when GB compatibility matters, differences from bizhawk_tap/release/press, or exclusions.

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