trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the trigger is pulled and then automatically released, implying a momentary action rather than a latched one. However it says nothing about timing/units for duration_ms, whether the call blocks, whether a snapshot is taken, or any rate/permission constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its argument summary are stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits usage guidance relative to siblings, units for duration_ms, the meaning of snapshot_after_ms, and any return behavior. Required parameters remain unelaborated, so an agent would be guessing on invocation details.

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 0% across 4 parameters. The description only hints at 'side' (left/right) and 'value' (0..1 range), leaving 'duration_ms' — a required parameter — and 'snapshot_after_ms' entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description. Partial compensation at best for a required, undocumented parameter.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('Pull L2 or R2') and states the full action lifecycle (pull to a value, then release), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like press, hold, or release_all. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the mapped button and analog-value framing makes the intent 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over press, hold, stick, or release_all, and no stated prerequisites. The auto-release behavior is implied but the agent must infer that release_all is not needed afterward. No exclusion conditions are stated.

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