send_key_sequence

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety or behavioral hints, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. The description adds meaningful context: it's the primary testing tool, it uses inline checkpoints for waits/state/screenshots, and it collects signals. However, it does not explicitly discuss possible side effects (e.g., game state mutation) or error handling, leaving a minor gap.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's role, and every sentence adds value. It packs a lot of information (inline checkpoints, replacement of loops, requirement) into two sentences without 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?

The schema is rich and the description is comprehensive. The collectSignals parameter in the schema already explains that signal events are returned in the response, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. Combined with the clear purpose and usage guidance, the tool is well-defined for an agent to select and invoke 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 enhances the schema by summarizing the purpose of inline checkpoints and how they integrate into a single sequence, which is not apparent from the schema alone. It also gives a concrete example in the keys parameter description, adding practical clarity beyond the raw 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 'Primary gameplay testing tool' and explicitly says it sends multiple raw keys and/or InputMap actions in one round-trip with inline checkpoints. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools send_input/send_key loops, making the tool's purpose and scope 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 explicitly mentions that this tool replaces send_input/send_key loops with shell sleeps and separate verification calls, clearly indicating when to use it over alternatives. It also specifies a prerequisite ('Requires run_interactive'), giving the agent actionable guidance on when this tool is applicable.

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