emulator_buttons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns button names/states, which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify whether this reflects the physical controller input or the emulated game state, whether it requires the emulator to be running, or what happens when target is invalid. The output format (JSON shape) is unspecified.

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?

A single concise sentence with no filler. It's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. One could argue it's under-specified rather than concise, but for the minimal content it conveys, it's clean and straightforward.

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 introspection tool with 1 optional param and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the target parameter and the format of returned data. The absence of any mention of the target parameter and the unspecified output shape make it incompletely documented, especially given that siblings like emulator_tap/hold/release imply a broader input-control workflow this tool feeds into.

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 0%, and there's a single 'target' parameter with default 'gb'. The description never mentions the target parameter at all, nor explains what valid values are (gb vs others like gba, nes). Since the schema provides no description for the parameter, the burden falls on the description, which completely omits it.

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 'Return current BizHawk joypad button names/states' clearly states the verb (Return) and resource (BizHawk joypad button names/states). It identifies this as a read-oriented introspection tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like emulator_status or emulator_bridge_info, though the joypad scope is reasonably distinctive.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this vs alternatives. There's no mention of when someone would need button states (e.g., reading inputs for automation), no exclusion criteria, and no relationship to emulator_tap/hold/release tools. The 'target' parameter purpose is unclear from the description alone.

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