quick_input_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: using cached coordinates (implying potential staleness) and not re-identifying the grid. This informs the user of trade-offs (speed vs. accuracy). However, it does not mention what happens if cached coordinates are invalid or other mutation effects.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that includes a precondition, the core action, and a clarifying negative condition. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and two simple parameters, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention return values or error conditions (e.g., what happens if coordinates are stale). It could be slightly more informative about the tool's boundaries.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions ('单元格引用' and '要输入的文本'). The description adds no extra detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline. No additional context on format or constraints is provided.

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 tool's purpose: using cached coordinates to click and input without re-identifying the grid. It specifies the exact scenario (when user explicitly requests quick/fast) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'input_cell' (which presumably re-identifies the grid) and 'quick_click_cell' (which only clicks).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: only when the user requests 'quick' or 'fast'. This is strong guidance. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., 'input_cell') for normal usage, though the context of siblings implies it. The guidance is clear but could be more explicit.

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