pet_key_hold

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: machine ends STOPPED, uses $97 poke, and is model-specific. It could mention more side effects but is fairly transparent.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the technical jargon makes it dense and less readable for an AI agent.

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 emulator-specific tools and no output schema, the description covers key behaviors (ends STOPPED, model dependency). Lacks detail on the 'frames' parameter and return value, but is adequate for a low-level tool.

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%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'key' (one character or space) and 'at' (frame anchor). 'frames' is implied by 'N game ticks', but 'session' and 'timeout' are not described. Only 2 of 5 parameters get clarification.

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 tool holds a key down for a number of game ticks, detailing the mechanism (re-poking $97) and the frame anchor. It distinguishes from siblings like pet_key_type by specifying 'hold' versus type.

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 provides context for usage (holding a key for precise timing) and includes a constraint (BASIC 4 models only). It does not explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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