game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that 'start' clips cursor to center, 'move' does relative camera look by dx,dy pixels * sensitivity, and 'heartbeat' is a keep-alive during long holds. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like cursor visibility changes, whether stop restores the cursor, or what happens on errors.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The action list is dense but efficient. The pipe-separated format is a bit terse but saves space. It earns its place by covering purpose, actions, and usage in two sentences.

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 tool has an output schema (though not shown in detail) and 4 parameters. The description covers the core actions and how to combine with keyboard/mouse, but lacks details like what the output looks like, whether sensitivity applies only to move, and edge cases like what happens if start is called twice. For a game-control tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains dx/dy as relative camera look pixels and sensitivity as a multiplier, but it doesn't explain the 'action' parameter's allowed values beyond listing them in the description (start, move, stop, heartbeat) — which is helpful but not mapped to the schema. The 'action' parameter has no enum in the schema, so the description's list is the only guidance, but it's not structured as parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as a game mode for FPS-style control and enumerates the specific actions (start, move, stop, heartbeat). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mouse and keyboard by framing it as a mode that combines with them, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 explains when to use the tool: for FPS-style control, and it instructs combining with keyboard() down/up for WASD and mouse(action='down'/'up') for shooting/building. It implies this is the alternative to direct mouse/keyboard for game contexts, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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