mame_send_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core action. It does not explain whether the input is a momentary press, a toggle, or requires specific timing, nor does it mention side effects, validation, or return values.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having only two parameters and no output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for correct invocation. It does not specify how to determine valid field names, what integer values are acceptable, or whether the MAME session must be in a particular state. This is a minimal description for a tool that still has hidden behavioral requirements.

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 gives helpful examples for the 'field' parameter ('Coin 1', 'P1 Right'), but does not explain the meaning of the 'value' integer parameter—whether it is a duration, a bitmask, or a simple on/off state.

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 action ('Set') and the target resource ('ioport field value'), with concrete examples ('Coin 1', 'P1 Right'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mame_set_reg and mame_write_memory by focusing specifically on ioport input fields.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active MAME session or retrieving available ioports first. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the word 'Set'.

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