game_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the key format and duration, but does not mention side effects, requirements (e.g., an active game connection), or what happens after the key is tapped. It also does not explain how the observe, show_ui, and max_size parameters affect behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs an input action.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences, and is well-structured with a clear format for key names. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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?

With five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the observe/show_ui/max_size parameters, nor does it clarify prerequisites or return behavior. More context is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 description covers only two of five parameters: key (with valid values) and duration (in seconds). The other three parameters (observe, show_ui, max_size) are entirely undocumented. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but does not, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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's action: 'Tap a keyboard key for `duration` seconds.' The verb 'tap' and resource 'keyboard key' are specific, and the mention of valid key names (ENTER, ESC, etc.) distinguishes it from siblings like game_pad (gamepad) or game_mouse. It is immediately clear what this tool does.

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 implies use for keyboard input by specifying a keyboard key, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like game_pad or game_mouse. No exclusions or conditions are given. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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