crosspad_input

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are minimal signals. The description does add behavioral detail (extras ignored, consolidated replacing 7 v5 tools, velocity default 127), but does not disclose output/return behavior, error cases (e.g., what happens if a required field is missing or simulator isn't running), or whether these events are transient vs persistent.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, then a compact bulleted action-to-field mapping. Every line earns its place; the per-action table is efficient and avoids repetition.

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 description covers required-field mapping, prerequisites, and default values comprehensively. However, for a consolidated tool replacing 7 prior tools, it does not describe the response/output format for the input event (e.g., whether it returns success, ack, or an error), though an output schema exists which mitigates this gap.

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% and the schema descriptions for x, y, pad, delta, keycode, and velocity are already detailed (coordinates, ranges, examples). The description adds marginal value via the per-action required-field mapping and the note that extras are ignored, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Send one input event to the running PC simulator") and clearly lists the 7 supported actions with their required fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like crosspad_run (which starts the sim) and crosspad_screenshot by clarifying this is for input events only.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite ("Requires the simulator to be running — crosspad_run first") and instructs the agent to supply ONLY the fields the chosen action needs, with extras ignored. The per-action required-field table makes selection unambiguous against sibling tools.

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