send_joypad_button

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the run_interactive requirement, giving useful behavioral context. It does not detail side effects, timing, or error states, but for a simple event-send tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and immediately gives an alternative preference and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 send tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guideline, and prerequisite. It lacks only an explicit mention of return value or status, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including button name categories and defaults for device and pressed. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 it sends a gamepad button event to a running project, listing examples (A, B, X, Y, shoulders, dpad, start). This distinguishes it from siblings like send_joypad_motion (axis), send_key (keyboard), and send_input (input actions).

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?

It provides explicit guidance 'For input actions, prefer send_input' and notes 'Requires run_interactive' as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with send_joypad_motion, though the button vs. axis distinction is implied by the tool name.

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