send_input

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Returns delivery confirmation only, not the effect' and 'Requires run_interactive'. It does not contradict annotations (all false), and the return-value caveat is important since there is no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return semantics and the alternative. Every clause earns its place, including the parenthetical 'no shell sleeps needed', which reinforces why send_key_sequence is preferred for multi-step.

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?

For a simple single-input tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, return behavior, and the main alternative. With no output schema and well-covered parameters, nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'InputMap action' context and examples for the action parameter, but the pressed parameter behavior is already fully described in the schema. Minimal extra value beyond the structured schema.

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 'Send a single Godot InputMap action... to a running interactive project', giving a specific verb, resource, and target. It distinguishes itself from send_key_sequence by noting the alternative for multi-step testing, and from other input tools by specifying 'InputMap action'.

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 explicitly says 'for multi-step testing prefer send_key_sequence' and describes what that tool offers (batching, waits, checkpoints). It also states the prerequisite 'Requires run_interactive', giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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