pt_press_button

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral context. It merely restates the action of pressing a button without mentioning side effects, requirements, or return behavior. For a tool that simulates physical button presses, additional context such as the need for a booted simulator or potential system actions would improve 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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately gives the relevant button examples. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is simple, with one required enum parameter and one optional string, fully documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it, although it does not mention prerequisites like simulator state or output. Given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the action, the description is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already contains descriptions for both udid and button (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter meanings. The description lists some button values but omits SIDE_BUTTON; however, the schema's enum is complete. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 verb 'Press' and the resource 'hardware button on the simulator', listing example buttons. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pt_swipe, pt_tap, and pt_type_text which deal with other interaction types. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies the tool is for pressing hardware buttons but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no mentions of preconditions or exclusions, and no sibling tool alternatives are referenced. This is minimal guidance, resulting in an implied usage level.

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