get_player_input

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds the crucial runtime caveat that it requires a live PIE/game session and that an empty pressed_keys outside PIE is meaningless — a behavioral trait annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the runtime constraint, then the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ player_controller, pressed_keys }) and the environment prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by qualifying the index as a 'local player index' (resolving the PlayerController for it), clarifying local vs. remote, which the schema's 'Player controller index to query' does not.

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 what a player is pressing RIGHT NOW'), names the exact return shape, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming both the static-mapping tool and the action-firing tool. An agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with conditions: list_all_input_mappings for the static 'which keys are bound' question, trigger_input_action for making an action fire. This is textbook when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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