mister_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that text typing uses correct keycodes and shift handling, but doesn't disclose side effects, required state (e.g., core loaded), or return behavior. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 paragraph with clear, front-loaded purpose. Each input method is described in one concise sentence with examples. No redundant information.

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 description covers keyboard inputs well but omits the gamepad inputs (button, dpad) from the textual guidance, causing a completeness gap. No mention of return value or constraints (e.g., parameter mutual exclusivity) given no output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to usage scenarios and providing examples (e.g., 'LOAD"*",8,1\n' for text) beyond schema descriptions.

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 sends input to MiSTer-FPGA via virtual keyboard, listing four input methods (key, raw, combo, text). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle config, launching, etc., by focusing on input dispatch.

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 concrete guidance on when to use each input method with examples (e.g., 'Use 'combo' for key combinations'). However, it does not explicitly address when not to use the tool or contrast with alternatives, and the gamepad inputs (button, dpad) are not covered in the usage advice.

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