get_input_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by warning that 'an action left consuming input can swallow a key for the whole game', which is real domain-level impact context, and by clarifying the trigger scoping rule. It does not, however, discuss pagination, size limits, or failure modes for missing assets.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and a Returns block, in a logical order. Most sentences earn their place, though the consume-input warning sentence is longer than strictly necessary and could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates fully by enumerating the return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, with both action_path and action_name documented including the fallback relationship, so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about the parameters beyond the schema; the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one Enhanced Input InputAction asset in full') and enumerates exactly what is returned (value type, accumulation, flags, triggers, modifiers). It explicitly distinguishes its own triggers from those on key bindings ('the ones on a specific key binding live in the mapping context (list_input_triggers)'), separating it from a plausible sibling.

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?

Names itself the 'read-back oracle for create_input_action, set_input_action_value_type and set_input_action_flags', specifying the exact contexts that call for this tool. It also carves out when to use list_input_triggers instead, and flags b_consume_input as the reason to call it.

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