godot_simulate_input

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing effects. It only says 'inject' events, which implies state modification, but doesn't explain side effects, whether inputs affect the actual game state, or how they are delivered. No detail on ordering, timing, or compatibility with running projects.

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 very short (single sentence) and not overlong, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential behavioral and usage context. It is concise but not effective; the brevity comes at the cost of informational value.

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 tool with 8 parameters, multiple event types, and optional fields, the description is grossly inadequate. It doesn't explain how to simulate a key press, a mouse movement, or a joypad action, nor does it cover return values or side effects. Even with an output schema present, the description leaves an agent guessing about invocation patterns and expected outcomes.

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 description provides no parameter-level guidance, and schema description coverage is 0%. While the schema itself has detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., event_type, key, action), the description adds no extra meaning or helps disambiguate optional parameters. The mention of event types in the description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of guidance on how to combine parameters.

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 'Inject simulated mouse, keyboard, or joypad events' clearly states the action (inject) and the resource (simulated input events). It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's core function. However, it lacks detail on scope or variations, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other simulate tools like godot_simulate_network_conditions, though the event types are specific enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be running), the intended scenario (testing, automation), or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate.

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