key

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 states the action but does not disclose blocking behavior, timeout semantics, what "settle" or "wait_change" do, whether the call is synchronous, or what happens on unsupported buttons.

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 wasted prose. The button enumeration duplicates the schema enum but is compact and harmless.

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 six-parameter input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits timing/blocking behavior, undocumented parameter meanings, and guidance relative to input siblings such as tap and back.

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 only 17%; only "settle" is documented in the schema. The description repeats the enum values from the schema but does not explain the five undocumented parameters (ms, timeout, stable_for, wait_change), which are critical for timing-sensitive input.

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?

States a specific verb ("Press") and resource ("hardware button") and enumerates the valid button names, making the action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like tap or back, but the hardware-button framing is reasonably distinctive.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus tap, back, home_screen, or other input siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints about appropriate scenarios.

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