client_press

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

The description reveals that the tool works without focus and drives the UI, and it explicitly states it cannot type. It also notes that no mouse or window messages are used, making the behavior transparent. However, some details like the mention of a third-party application are not essential and slightly obscure the transparency.

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 unnecessarily verbose and repetitive. Phrases like 'Measured with a third-party application holding the foreground the whole time' and 'window messages were measured to do nothing at all' add little value and are redundant. The structure could be much more concise and focused.

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?

The description provides good context about the tool's capabilities and limitations (no typing, works without focus, lists buttons). However, it does not mention the output or return value, even though an output schema exists. This leaves a gap in understanding what the tool returns, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is a minor omission.

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 description enumerates all valid button names (a, b, x, y, back, start, left_shoulder, right_shoulder, dpad_up, dpad_down, dpad_left, dpad_right), which is crucial for the `button` parameter. It does not explain the `seconds` parameter explicitly, but the default (0.1) and context imply it is press duration. Overall, parameter meaning is well-addressed.

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 one gamepad button.' It also specifies the resource (gamepad) and distinguishes it from other input tools by noting it works without focus. The verb 'Press' is specific 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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: it mentions that text input should go through `client_chat` and `client_type`, and clarifies that this tool is for button presses without focus. This provides clear guidance on usage scenarios.

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