Trigger Event

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the underlying MapClientEventToSimEvent + TransmitClientEvent mechanism, send-ID correlation, error behavior (NAME_UNRECOGNIZED/ERROR vs propagated exceptions), and the critical caveat that acceptance does not guarantee the aircraft acted on the event. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the opener states the action, the second paragraph explains resolution and mechanism, and the final paragraph covers important behavioral caveats. The structure is front-loaded and the density is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema present and detailed annotations, the description covers resolution order, error handling, correlation limits, and aircraft-specific behavior. It even points to external documentation for known Sim Behaviours. No critical operational information appears to be missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents name examples and integer parameter behavior including negative values. The description adds context about name resolution through the catalog and direct mapping, but does not further clarify parameter semantics beyond the 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?

Description opens with 'Fire a SimConnect event' — a specific verb and resource. It further defines scope by explaining the 994-event catalog resolution and fallback to direct name mapping, making clear this is the generic SimConnect event trigger, distinct from siblings like msfs_trigger_custom_event.

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 useful context: it works for both catalog events and third-party/newer MSFS events, and explains error semantics. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as msfs_trigger_custom_event or msfs_set_simvar; usage is implied rather than directly contrasted.

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