press_button

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (press button, return screenshot) and timing details (hold_frames default and conversion to ms), but does not mention side effects (e.g., game state changes), error conditions, or response format. It adds some context but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and parameters well, but lacks details on the returned screenshot (format, dimensions) and potential errors. For a tool with visual output and game interaction, more context on results and side effects 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 adds meaningful semantics: it explains 'button' as the GBA button to press with enumerated values, and 'hold_frames' as duration with default and time conversion (~167ms). This goes beyond the schema's bare enums and types, though it doesn't fully document all nuances (e.g., frame rate assumptions).

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 specific action ('Press a GBA button') and the outcome ('return a screenshot of the result'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'hold_button' (which holds without screenshot) and 'get_screenshot' (which only captures without pressing). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 for pressing GBA buttons to see visual results, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'press_buttons' (plural) or 'hold_button'. It provides context (GBA emulation) but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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