retroarch_input_set_analog

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses latching (no auto-release), one-datagram-per-frame sequencing, UDP transport without acknowledgment, the requirement for network_remote_enable settings, and that two datagrams are sent consecutively. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 organized into clear labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, Transport, RETURNS) and every sentence adds substantive information. Despite its length, there is no filler — each detail (latching, frame timing, configuration prerequisites) is necessary for correct usage.

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 tool involving network transport, latching state, and frame-level timing, the description is comprehensive. It covers the return value, network configuration, frame-accurate usage pattern, and the two-receiver behaviors. No output schema exists, but the description fully addresses expected return and side effects, making it contextually 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?

Schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the int16 range semantics, the importance of (0,0) for centering, the two-datagram send order, and the player index default reference. This complements the schema without redundancy.

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 opens with 'Set one analog stick's X/Y position for a player', clearly stating the verb (set), resource (analog stick), and scope (player, axes). It identifies this as distinct from button-press tools via 'Like buttons' and from other input tools by focusing on analog sticks, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

It provides explicit use cases ('analog movement, camera control, or pressure-sensitive navigation'), latching behavior, and a frame-accurate scripting pattern. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this, it implicitly distinguishes from button inputs and references companion functions (retroarch_input_release_all). This is clear guidance, though a direct exclusion would elevate it.

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