simulate_sequence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the timing behavior ('one event every frame_delay frames') and the dropped-if-no-game-running condition. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like return values, error handling, or whether a mid-sequence game stop cancels the entire batch.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. Every element—ordered, batch, running game, frame_delay, dropped condition—serves a distinct purpose, with no wasted words.

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 complex nested event schema, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain event types, valid actions, failure behavior, or return value, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description adds minimal meaning for frame_delay (defines it as the interval between events) and calls events 'input events', but does not explain the nested event object variants, keycodes, buttons, modifiers, or defaults. With schema description coverage at 0%, this is insufficient for the highly structured events array.

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 a specific verb (Send), identifies the resource (running game), and specifies the scope (ordered batch of input events with timing). This clearly distinguishes it from single-event siblings 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?

The description implies use for sending multiple events in a timed sequence, and the 'ordered batch' phrasing suggests when to prefer it over single-event tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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