qemu_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is partly carried structurally. The description goes beyond them by explaining that 'sysrq' triggers the Linux Magic SysRq key and that 'alt-sysrq-c' can force a crash dump, implicitly warning that this can disrupt the guest kernel. It does not state error behavior for unrecognized key names, but the sysrq disclosure is substantive added context.

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 concept and the sibling steer are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the remaining text is dense with concrete syntax rules rather than filler. The multi-line layout is slightly harder to scan than a single tight paragraph, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-parameter tool, the combo grammar and sysrq special case are well covered; the main remaining gap is that the description never says what 'name' identifies (the target VM), which an agent must infer from the qemu_ prefix.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does this thoroughly for 'combo': parts joined with '-', pressed together, literal '-' written as '--', and a documented 'sysrq' token with examples. The 'name' parameter is never explained, leaving one of two parameters undocumented, which prevents a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Press a key or chord') and immediately grounds it with concrete examples ('enter', 'ctrl-alt-f2', 'ctrl-c'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling qemu_type by name, so an agent can pick the right tool without inspecting either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use qemu_type for plain text, this tool for key/chord input. That is a real when-to-use signal against a sibling. It does not cover when-not-to-use in a risk sense (e.g. avoid combos that could interrupt the guest), which keeps it below a 5.

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