dd2_take_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: it remembers the terminal window, focuses the game, closes the focus-loss pause menu, and checks PauseManager before sending Esc. It does not mention failure modes if the game is absent or whether the window memory is restored automatically, but the core side effects are well covered.

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 dense sentences with no wasted framing, and the core action is front-loaded. The parenthetical about PauseManager and Esc is useful but makes the second clause slightly hard to parse in one pass.

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 focus-control tool with no annotations, the behavioral narrative is fairly complete and an output schema exists so return values are covered. However, the only parameter's meaning is left implicit despite 0% schema coverage, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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% for the single 'unpause' boolean, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions closing the pause menu, which implicitly relates to unpausing, but never names the parameter or explains what setting unpause=false would do. An agent must infer the parameter's effect.

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 verb and resource: 'Bring DD2 to the front for testing.' It also distinguishes the complementary role of dd2_hand_back, so an agent can tell the two apart. It stops short of a crisp one-line scope statement because the pause-menu mechanics are woven into the same sentence.

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?

It gives clear pairing guidance: use dd2_hand_back 'whenever the player needs to read output or answer.' That implies when to take control versus hand back. It does not state exclusions for testing contexts or what to do if the game is not running, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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