cyd_input_macro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'queue' (implying asynchronous) and 'short' (implying a limit), but does not disclose side effects, whether it blocks, if it clears previous queued input, or error behavior. It also does not mention that the machine is 'cyd' beyond the initial tag. Key behavioral aspects are left unstated.

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 action, but it includes extraneous metadata 'Machine-specific (cyd). Action, L0.' that does not aid understanding. The core sentence is concise, but the overall structure could be more useful by focusing on usage and behavior.

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 a complex parameter (array of objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how to structure the steps array, the limits on coordinates and delays, or what the tool returns. An agent needs more explicit guidance to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'coordinate taps' and 'optional delays' but does not explicitly map these to the 'steps' array fields (x, y, delay_ms). It does not clarify coordinate ranges, the meaning of delay_ms, or the max 64 items. The description adds minimal semantic value over the raw 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 clearly states it queues a sequence of coordinate taps with optional delays, which is a specific verb+resource and differentiates from single-tap siblings like cyd_tap by the word 'sequence'. However, it does not name sibling tools explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cyd_tap or cyd_input_clear. The description does not state conditions like 'for multiple taps' or 'when you need delays between taps'. An agent would have to infer use cases from the tool's name and purpose.

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