list_input_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool lists available FKey values and describes filtering parameters (filter, category, max_results) clearly. While it does not specify that the operation is read-only, the 'list' verb implies no side effects, and the parameter details add transparency.

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 concise: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a compact argument list. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan quickly.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to specify return values. It covers the basic context of listing keys. However, it could briefly mention that the keys come from the engine's input system, but it is adequate for a simple listing tool.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter's purpose and default values. It clarifies that 'filter' is a substring filter on key name or display name, 'category' filters by category type, and 'max_results' controls the limit. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is essential and well-done.

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 lists available FKey values for keyboard, mouse, and gamepad keys. The verb 'List' and resource 'FKey values' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguishable from sibling tools that deal with other input actions or different systems.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Although sibling tools include many input-related functions (e.g., create_input_action, get_input_action), the description does not mention that this tool can be used to obtain valid key names for those operations. No when-not or alternative suggestions are given.

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