simulate_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects on the game state, whether events are injected synchronously or asynchronously, whether a running game or focus is required, or what happens with invalid actions. The agent must infer most behavioral traits.

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 economical sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core purpose. It is concise to the point of being thin for a five-parameter tool, but the brevity itself is not the failure here; the missing operational context is captured in other dimensions.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the bare purpose and none of the surrounding context an agent needs to call it with confidence. The rich parameter schema explains what to send, but it says nothing about expected return behavior, side effects, or prerequisites such as a running game. The combination of minimal description and absent annotations makes this only minimally viable.

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 baseline of 3 applies even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema already explains action options, count, duration, interval, and player. The description's phrase 'keyboard/controller input' loosely aligns with the schema but does not enhance or clarify any parameter further.

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 names a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('keyboard/controller input'), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling inspection and mutation tools. It is clear and unambiguous about the domain, though it does not add scope details or contrast with a sibling. It falls just short of a 5 because it stops at the generic capability.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like execute_code, set_player_health, and run_test_script present, the description does not state that simulate_input is the right choice for key/controller events or when scripted execution would be preferable. The intended usage is only implied by the name and schema.

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