game_manage

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden and does so well. It discloses specific behavioral details such as 'A present but malformed position is rejected rather than silently falling back to the cursor,' 'Action-based input is focus-independent, so it works on a backgrounded game window,' and the frame-timing semantics of input_sequence. It also clarifies that ops are executed through the EngineDebugger bridge, setting accurate expectations.

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 well-structured: a concise summary, a prerequisite line, then a bulleted list of ops with signatures and short explanations. It is long but every sentence provides necessary operational detail; there is no fluff. The canonical call shape at the end is a useful practical touch.

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 (nine ops), the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, op semantics, timing constraints, exclusions, and input formats. It even clarifies a subtle edge case and provides a canonical invocation example. This gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke the correct op.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must (and does) provide comprehensive parameter semantics. Each op includes a signature with default values, accepted types, and special cases—for example, root_path 'accepts an absolute runtime path or a scene-relative path,' and input_mouse's position can be an object or array with explicit fallback behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opening line 'Runtime game inspection and input simulation' clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs and resource types. The description further distinguishes it from static editing siblings by emphasizing it 'targets the running game process through Godot's EngineDebugger bridge' and enumerates nine distinct runtime operations.

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 provides explicit prerequisites: 'Start the project first with project_run and poll editor_state until game_capture_ready=true.' It also gives clear alternative guidance for input_sequence: 'Use this instead of separate input_action calls whenever timing matters...' and notes a restriction: 'Cannot run inside batch_execute.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool.

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