simulate_action

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

Description discloses the key edge case that input is dropped when no game is running, which is helpful. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, but it does not explain effects on game state, focus requirements, or whether the action toggles.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb, and no unnecessary words. It conveys the core behavior and an important caveat efficiently.

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 simple tool, the description covers purpose and a key edge case. However, it omits parameter semantics (especially `strength`) and does not differentiate from sibling simulation tools beyond the InputMap action mention, leaving some context gaps.

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%. The description implies the action name and the pressed state via 'Press or release', but it does not explain the `strength` parameter or provide syntax examples. It partially compensates but leaves meaning unclear.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Press or release a named InputMap action in the running game'. The verb is specific and the resource (InputMap action) distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulate_key or simulate_mouse_click.

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?

Provides clear context that it operates on InputMap actions in the running game, and notes the dropped-if-no-game-running condition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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