emu_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses validation of button/action names and the specific semantics of each action, but it does not state side effects or whether this mutates emulator state (though implied).

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 compact and well-organized, with the main purpose in the first sentence and parameter details following in a clear, structured manner. 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?

For a tool with simple parameters and the provided descriptions, this is complete. It covers all parameter semantics, preconditions ('running emulator'), and validation behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains all valid values for 'action', the allowed 'button' choices, the requirement and constraints for 'duration_ms', and that 'tap' requires neither.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the resource ('the running emulator'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like emu_screenshot and emu_logs by focusing on input injection.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use emu_input versus alternatives such as emu_screenshot or emu_start. The description explains internal action modes (press/longpress/tap) but does not compare with other tools.

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