insanitii_manual_control_readiness_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses what the tool verifies and its limitation relative to human testing, but it does not say whether PIE is left running, whether the report is blocking, or what side effects 'Launch PIE' causes despite stop_after_probe existing as a parameter.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then uses a KB pointer, a concrete example, and a compact bullet-style list of verified properties. It is a little longer than necessary, but every section adds useful choice-relevant information.

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?

The output schema presumably documents the report shape, and the description explains what the tool checks and its main limitation, so this is not a bare stub. However, with no annotations and no parameter semantics, the description still leaves important call-invocation gaps; the KB pointer helps but does not make the description self-sufficient.

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 the description must compensate, but it only appears to explain parameters through a single example. It never states what mode values are valid, what wait_seconds controls, what include_dialogs does, or what stop_after_probe actually stops; include_dialogs is not even mentioned.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Launch PIE and verify possessed-player movement/look readiness for Insanitii,' and then enumerates the concrete checks performed (possessed pawn, movement/look mappings, gameplay input components, cursor trap, movement input response, control rotation response). This clearly separates it from the many other insanitii readiness reports in the sibling list.

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 implies its usage context (automated readiness proof) and explicitly says it is not a replacement for human feel testing, but it does not name alternative tools or state when another insanitii report should be used instead. The KB pointer hints at a broader command reference but does not provide the routing itself.

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