Simulate input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that input goes through Godot's input system and 'reacts exactly as it would to a real device', plus the bridge_install dependency. This explains the mechanism and side-effects better than a simple 'simulate input' would.

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?

Three short sentences, each with distinct purpose: purpose, behavior, prerequisite. No fluff.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters and no output schema, but the schema's robust descriptions and constraints compensate. The description provides high-level context (running game, Godot input system) that the schema lacks. It doesn't explain parameter combinations, but the schema's 'kind' description advises preferring 'action'.

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 75%, and the schema already includes descriptions for the main parameters (x, y, key, kind, action, button, pressed, project, strength). The description enumerates input kinds but doesn't add syntax or modifier details beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Send' with resource 'synthetic input to the running game', and enumerates the input types (action, key, mouse move, click). This clearly distinguishes it from editor-control or project-management sibling tools by focusing on runtime input simulation.

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 states 'Requires bridge_install and a running game' as a prerequisite, giving clear context for when the tool can be used. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the running-game scope implicitly separates it from editor tools.

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