simulate_input

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on potential destructive consequences beyond runtime errors. It mentions return values and warnings, but doesn't warn that input can irreversibly alter project state. The description carries some burden that is not fully met.

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 a single dense paragraph of 5 sentences, each providing essential information. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While it could benefit from bullet points for readability, there is no waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (multiple action types, many optional fields), the description covers gating logic, prerequisites, press/release patterns, wait insertion, and return fields. It misses explicitly stating that actions are executed sequentially, but that is implied. Overall, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 value by noting that each action's type gates applicable fields (implicitly guiding parameter use) and by explaining press/release behavior and wait timing. This extra context lifts the score above baseline.

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 simulates sequential input in a running project, with explicit enumeration of action types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_project or get_ui_elements, which serve different purposes. The verb 'simulate' + resource 'input' is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives concrete guidance: use get_ui_elements before click_element, handle press/release with two actions, insert wait between for frame ticks. It also mentions errors for missing sessions or validation failures. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool, the context is clear given the sibling set.

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