press_bank_button

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses deprecation and indexing, but does not describe side effects, safety, or error conditions. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, no fluff. Key information (legacy API, deprecation, indexing) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description provides necessary context about the legacy API and indexing. However, it lacks information on when to use this over other press variants and does not mention return values or typical use cases.

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 covers 0% of parameter descriptions. The description adds that 'button is 0-indexed,' which clarifies the parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'page' parameter, leaving a gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Press a button'), the resource ('legacy bank API'), and a key detail ('0-indexed'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like press_button, press_button_sequence, etc., by specifying the legacy API context.

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 mentions 'deprecated but still works,' implying use for backward compatibility, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide exclusions. More guidance would improve selection.

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