dd2_key

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real traits: a single discrete press (not a hold or repeat) and automatic focusing/raising of the game window. It does not disclose timing, whether the press is synchronous, how failures surface, or what permissions/focus constraints are required.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, then supplies the one decoded parameter inline, then the behavioral caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 2-parameter input tool the description covers both parameters and the one surprising behavior (auto-focus). Remaining gaps are edge-case behaviors (game not running, key not delivered), which are modest for this tool's complexity.

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 0% and the schema provides only bare names 'scan' and 'focus'. The description compensates well: it defines scan as a hardware scan code and supplies four example codes, and it explains that focus controls whether the game is brought forward before the key is sent. Minor gap: it does not state the default (Esc 0x01 / true) as a default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send one key press ... to the game'. The parenthetical pins down exactly what a key press means here (hardware scan code) and gives concrete examples, so scope is unambiguous. No sibling sends input, so no disambiguation is strictly needed, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'focusing it first unless focus=False' implies the game may not be in the foreground, which is useful situational context, but the description never says when to use this versus related tools (dd2_take_control, dd2_pause_state) or what preconditions exist (e.g. game must be running). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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