emulator_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. It does disclose the key behavior ('without releasing afterward'), which is the critical trait distinguishing it from tap. However, it omits whether holding can be stopped or how the button gets released, and there are sibling tools (emulator_release, emulator_reset) that suggest release mechanisms exist but aren't referenced.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential operation and key behavioral constraint. There is minimal waste, though it is slightly under-specified in that it doesn't address parameter semantics.

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 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is lean for this tool's complexity. The 'frames' and 'button' semantics are partially conveyed, but 'target' and release behavior are unaddressed. For a tool in a family with tap/release/step siblings, more guidance on interaction with those tools would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'frames' means 'N frames' of hold duration, which is useful. However, it doesn't document what 'button' values are valid (though emulator_buttons tool exists as a source), what 'target' accepts beyond the default 'gb', or any default behavior nuances for the three optional 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?

The description states the action clearly: 'Hold one button for N frames without releasing afterward.' This uses a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like emulator_tap (press and release) and emulator_release. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, which would strengthen differentiation.

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 implies a clear use case (holding a button for a sustained duration) and the 'without releasing afterward' clarifies a key behavioral distinction. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. emulator_tap/emulator_release, nor does it state the behavior of releasing the button before a subsequent press.

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