game_input_state

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only advertises a query operation, while the schema's action parameter includes warp_mouse and set_mouse_mode, both of which are mutating behaviors. Failing to disclose these side effects makes the description misleading about the tool's full behavior.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words, and the query intent is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the querying aspect, though the missing action modes make it slightly too terse for full coverage.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should be more complete. It gives a hint about returned data (keys, mouse position, pads) but ignores the mutating action parameter and provides no context about how the tool fits into the broader input-handling workflow. An agent could easily miss warp_mouse and set_mouse_mode capabilities.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents x, y, action, and mouseMode adequately. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Query') and specific resources (pressed keys, mouse position, connected pads), making the primary purpose understandable and distinct from sibling simulation tools like game_key_press or game_mouse_move. However, it omits the non-query actions in the schema (warp_mouse, set_mouse_mode), so the description is incomplete on full purpose.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_key_press, game_mouse_move, or game_gamepad. The word 'Query' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state exclusions, prerequisites, or when one of the sibling tools should be preferred.

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