Sa Press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious behavior — "Reports dialogs it opened" — but omits that pressing buttons mutates application state, whether a dialog-opening press blocks, and how the dialog/answer/confirm parameters participate in that flow.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded ahead of the behavioral note. "Any SAStudio4 button" is slightly loose but the parenthetical immediately constrains it.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the basic action adequately and return values need not be explained. However, the multi-step dialog interaction (dialog, answer, confirm) is the most complex aspect and goes unaddressed, leaving the workflow incomplete.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (menu, mode, panel, dialog, option, answer, confirm). The description adds only the mapping of "momentary actions, menu buttons" to the button kinds, which is marginal beyond 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?

States a specific verb ("Press") and resource ("SAStudio4 button") and scopes it to momentary actions and menu buttons, which distinguishes it from generic navigation tools. It does not explicitly name the closest siblings (sa_menu, sa_dialog, sa_controls), so it falls short of full sibling 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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus sa_menu, sa_dialog, or sa_controls, and no mention that button names come from sa_controls. Usage is only implied by the parenthetical scoping of button kinds.

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