godot_input_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, safety (e.g., whether operations are destructive), or any behavioral traits beyond the list of actions.

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 brief, which sacrifices informativeness. While concise, it lacks structure and fails to front-load important details for each action or parameter.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple actions), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, expected behavior per action, or how parameters interact.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. 'action' and 'params' are not explained, leaving the agent guessing about valid values and usage.

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 'InputMap management' and lists the supported actions (list, add, remove, bind, ensure, get), distinguishing it from sibling tools like godot_input which likely handle input events rather than the InputMap configuration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_input or other editor tools. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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