editor_simulate_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (simulate a key press) but does not explain side effects, whether the key press is sent to the editor UI or the running game, if focus is required, or what the return behavior is. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for an input-simulation tool.

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 includes examples. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the main purpose and examples. However, it does not clarify whether the simulated key press targets editor shortcuts or the running game, which is important given the sibling tool `runtime_input`. It also lacks any mention of edge cases or limitations, making it minimally complete but not thorough.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of value by showing example key values ('F5', 'Ctrl+S') that hint at the modifier syntax, but it does not substantially enhance the schema's documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('key press in the editor'), and provides concrete examples ('F5' to run, 'Ctrl+S' to save) that illustrate the intended use. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like editor_play or runtime_input, as it focuses on sending key presses to the editor.

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 examples imply usage scenarios (running, saving), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like editor_play or runtime_input, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. It offers context but no direct guidance on choosing this tool over similar ones.

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