press_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 discloses key behavioral traits: it performs actions (button presses) and returns a screenshot, implying it's not read-only and may have side effects. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the sequence fails, which are important for a tool with potential side effects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage context and detailed parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a tool with side effects and no annotations or output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. However, it lacks details on error handling or the screenshot format, which could be important for an agent. Without an output schema, some return value context is missing, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'sequence' is a list of button presses, provides the structure of each entry (e.g., 'button', 'hold_frames', 'release_frames'), and specifies default values. This fully documents the parameter semantics, making it easy for an agent to invoke correctly.

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: 'Press a sequence of buttons and return a screenshot after the last one.' It specifies the verb ('press'), resource ('buttons'), and outcome ('return a screenshot'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'press_button' (single press) and 'get_screenshot' (no pressing). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'hold_button', which is why it's not a 5.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Useful for menu navigation like selecting options or entering text.' This gives practical examples of when to use it. It implies usage over 'press_button' for sequences, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

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