gmod_console_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a lot: [Windows only] platform limit, [Experimental] stability warning, the focus-stealing UI-automation sequence, and the Russian-layout caveat. Missing only failure/return behavior, but the operational risk profile is well disclosed.

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?

Platform and experimental flags are front-loaded, followed by the action, the mechanism, the caveat, and the alternative. Dense and largely waste-free, though the step-by-step mechanism sentence is slightly verbose relative to what an agent needs to invoke the tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers platform scope, stability risk, mechanics, a known failure mode, and sibling routing. Return behavior is unspecified, but that is minor here.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with examples in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Выполнить команду через консоль Garry's Mod') and describes the exact mechanism used (focus window, open console, type, Enter, close). It also names which sibling it is not and why ('Для серверных команд лучше использовать gmod_execute_rcon'), so the agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: server-side commands should go to gmod_execute_rcon. It also warns about the Russian keyboard layout failure mode. It does not spell out the positive case (which client-side commands suit this tool), but the routing guidance is clear.

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