pie_simulate_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that require_pie can cause failure without an active session and that it returns a JSON string with dispatch details. However, it does not describe potential side effects on game state, error handling, or whether the command execution is blocking. There is no contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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 well-structured with clear Args, Returns, KB, and Example sections. The main action is front-loaded, and the extra rationale about console commands is concise and adds context without excessive length. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameter meanings, return type, and provides an example and a knowledge base reference. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but for a command injection tool with a simple interface, it provides enough information for an agent to call it correctly. The output schema is not detailed, but the description states it returns a JSON string with dispatch details.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes each parameter: console_command with an example, player_index as 'Local player controller index', and require_pie as 'Fail when no PIE/SIE session is active'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though it could provide more detail on allowed formats or defaults.

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 sends console-command style input to the active PIE world, with a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from session management and logging tools by focusing on input injection, though it does not explicitly name a 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?

The description provides rationale for starting with console commands (stable, scriptable, auditable) and mentions that higher-fidelity injection can build on top later, implying this is the initial approach. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pie_capture_log or pie_launch_session, nor does it provide exclusions.

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