desktop_recover_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it excels. It details non-replay of input, non-resumption of paused desktop, use of original session, untouched replaced X server, blocked unproven cleanup, return values, and BUSY error condition. This is comprehensive and leaves little to inference.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds distinct useful information: exclusion of replay/resume, session behavior, cleanup blocking, return contents, and BUSY condition. No filler or redundancy is present.

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?

Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the action, behavioral constraints, return values (pending_count, recovery proofs), a required follow-up ('observe again'), and an error condition (BUSY). An agent has enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms an empty object, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return semantics rather than parameters.

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 specific action ('Retry cleanup of this server's interrupted supervised input') on a specific resource, and explicitly contrasts it with what it does not do ('without replaying keys/clicks or resuming a paused desktop'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like desktop_reconnect and desktop_play while making the tool's core role unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys when this tool is appropriate: after an interrupted supervised input, when cleanup is needed but replaying or resuming is not desired. It also warns to 'observe again before acting', which gives operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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