flipper_app_button

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Press a button' is consistent. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond the obvious, such as required permissions, side effects of pressing (e.g., app state changes), or error conditions (e.g., app not running). The bar is lower due to annotations, but the description does not exceed it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotation coverage, the description is too brief. It fails to mention return values (e.g., success/failure), behavior when the app is not running or button is invalid, or explanation of the 'index' parameter. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect usage by an AI agent.

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 50% (args and port have descriptions; index and action lack them). The tool description does not add any new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not compensate for the missing schema details, e.g., it doesn't explain the 'index' parameter or the 'action' enum values beyond what is already in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: pressing a button inside a running app that supports RPC control, with a concrete example (Sub-GHz remote). The verb 'press' and resource 'button' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like flipper_input or flipper_input_sequence by focusing on RPC-based button control.

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 usage context (when a running app supports RPC button control) but does not explicitly address when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The phrase 'such as the Sub-GHz remote' provides a hint but is insufficient for clear decision-making among siblings.

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