runtime_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it injects a key event, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (beyond the game running), whether the game must be in focus, or failure modes. This is minimal transparency for a mutation-like 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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. The missing context (e.g., whether keys need to be released manually, the requirement for focus) is not critical for basic usage, but a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. It does not explain the significance of action 'press'/'release' or keycode mappings beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific action ('Inject a key input event') and targets a specific resource ('the running game'), which distinguishes it from similar tools like editor_simulate_key that operate in the editor context. This is a precise and actionable purpose statement.

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 usage when the game is running, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., editor_simulate_key) or provide any exclusions. The 'running game' context provides an implied use case, but no direct guidance is given.

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