defold_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the screen after pressing, that triggers are action ids, and that it affects the in-game controller not the GUI. It misses edge cases like game-not-running or failure handling, but covers the core behavioral traits well.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a critical note about usage order. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how triggers are defined, what it returns, and a prerequisite. It could mention error conditions (e.g., game not running) but these are minor gaps for a straightforward input tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that trigger ids are action ids from input bindings and giving an example, which goes beyond the schema's generic description. This is a meaningful addition.

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 states a specific action (press input triggers) on a specific resource (the running game's action ids), and clarifies that it drives the in-game controller rather than the GUI. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like defold_start or defold_screen, even without naming them.

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 gives a clear usage context (press triggers in order) and a prerequisite (use defold_start to get past menus first). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the note about bridge input vs GUI provides directional guidance. This is above average.

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