cyd_input_clear

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 read-and-clear mutation but does not disclose what happens when no input event is pending, whether clearing affects the state seen by cyd_input_read, or what 'L0' means. For a mutation operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It could earn a 5 by explaining the unexplained 'Action, L0' tokens, but as written it is properly concise.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves the 'L0'/'Action' terminology unexplained and omits edge-case behavior (e.g., behavior when the input queue is empty). Adequate but with clear gaps in operational context.

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 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics the description must clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate – nothing is left undocumented.

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 verb+resource pair: 'Read the most recent input event and clear it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling cyd_input_read (which presumably only reads) because it adds the clearing behavior. The 'Machine-specific (cyd)' prefix is minor noise but not misleading.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cyd_input_read or cyd_input_state. The 'Action, L0' qualifier is unexplained jargon that gives the agent no actionable routing information. There is no when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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