cyd_home

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. It states the core action but does not explain side effects, whether it preserves app state, any permissions required, or the nature of 'Home' (e.g., a specific launcher or system home). This is minimal for a tool that presumably navigates away from the current app.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action ('Return the foreground application to Home'). The prefix 'Machine-specific (cyd). Action, L1.' is terse but adds some context, though it could be clarified. Overall, it is concise and efficient without unnecessary words.

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 action with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks context about what 'Home' means (system home, a specific app, or an app-specific state), and it does not mention any prerequisites or limitations. Given the absence of annotations, a slightly richer description would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 coverage is trivially 100% (empty object). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter semantics because none exist. A score of 4 reflects the baseline and that no additional clarification is needed.

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 action: 'Return the foreground application to Home.' It specifies a verb and resource, and it is distinct from siblings like cyd_launch or cyd_pause in that it performs a specific navigation action. It lacks an explicit differentiation from other navigation-related tools, but the purpose is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does ('Return the foreground application to Home') with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The context 'Machine-specific (cyd). Action, L1.' offers metadata but not usage criteria.

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