ppsspp_press_buttons

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

The BEHAVIOR section clearly discloses that the button state is persistent and only changes upon a new command. It mentions case-sensitive button names and that unrecognized names return an error. The return format is also specified. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and front-loaded with the key verb. It is slightly verbose but each sentence provides necessary information. No redundancy is present.

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 of persistent state and the need to explain behavior relative to sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return value. There is no output schema, but the return format is well described.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with a detailed description and example. The description adds value beyond the schema by listing all valid button names, noting case-sensitivity, and describing error behavior and the return string format. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Set the PSP joypad button state' and specifies that the state persists until changed. It distinguishes from the sibling tool ppsspp_press_button, which is described as a 'timed one-shot', by explicitly contrasting the persistent behavior.

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 USAGE section explicitly says 'Drive games with input' and explains the persistent nature versus one-frame-only schemes. It tells when to use this tool (for sustained input) and when to use the alternative (ppsspp_press_button for timed press). Instructions for releasing all buttons are also provided.

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