system_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the fundamental read/write nature of each op (e.g., get_env 'Read' vs set_env 'Set', set_time_scale 'Accelerate or slow down'). It stops short of richer behavioral context such as side effects on persistent process state, clipboard permission implications, or whether time-scale changes are reversible.

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 opens with a one-line domain summary and then uses a compact bullet list where every line names an op and its effect. The canonical call-shape note is necessary and placed last; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 multi-op tool, all seven operations are described with their key parameters, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it lacks any caveats about environment persistence, clipboard side effects, or rate-limit/authorization expectations.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing per-op signatures with defaults (time_scale=1.0, text='', value='') and by explaining the dispatch envelope: {'op': '<verb>', 'params': {...}}. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema, though session_id and the exact param container types are not expanded.

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 names a concrete scope (OS information, time APIs, engine time scale, clipboard, environment) and enumerates seven operations with explicit verbs and targets, e.g. 'get_system_info() Inspect OS name...' and 'set_time_scale(time_scale=1.0) Accelerate or slow down...'. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and separates it from sibling 'manage' tools that target game scenes, resources, or editors.

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 domain list and operation names imply when to use it: whenever the agent needs system info, time, time scale, clipboard, or environment variables. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance or exclusions, and with nearly 100 sibling *-manage tools the routing is left mostly to inference.

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