game_reset_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 the exact physical actions performed (release, centre, lift) and implies the effect of unsticking the character. While it does not mention side effects or broader scope, the reset behavior is clear and sufficient for this simple tool.

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 concise sentences, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and a crisp usage note in the second. Every word earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully addresses how to use the tool, when to use it, and what it accomplishes. Even includes a troubleshooting scenario ('stuck walking into a wall'). Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to add. The description correctly contains no parameter details, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no deduction is warranted.

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 on a clear resource: 'Release every held button, centre the sticks, lift the mouse buttons.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like game_key, game_mouse, and game_pad, which handle individual inputs. It is not a tautology and clearly communicates the tool's function.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after `hold=True` actions, or any time the character seems stuck walking into a wall.' This gives clear, concrete when-to-use conditions. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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