client_input

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

Discloses all relevant behaviors: modal exclusivity, duration in seconds (not ticks), clamping to 5s, reset after 30s or gmod_mcp_release, and detailed click mechanics (cursor movement, hover wait, press/release). No annotations present, so description carries full burden and meets it.

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 dense but structured: general purpose, then modal, then duration/reset, then action-specific details. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more front-loaded or broken into bullet points for quicker scanning. Still, it's efficient for the 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?

Given 23 parameters, high schema coverage, no output schema, and complex interactions, the description covers all necessary aspects: action modes, parameter dependencies, safety limits, and usage patterns. It leaves no significant gap for an agent to infer.

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 96% with descriptions on almost all parameters. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining duration units, that tick counts are not duration, and relationships between actions (e.g., click does not need move_cursor). However, much of the parameter meaning is already in the schema, so a 3 would be baseline; the extra context justifies a 4.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement ('Drives the connected GMod client') and lists all sub-actions (movement, aim, keys, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only input tool among read/command/entity tools, so no confusion.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: modal modes ('world' vs 'ui'), when to use set_text vs type, that click is self-sufficient (no move_cursor needed), and suggests follow-up tools like read_view. Also warns about duration units and resets.

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