Computer Key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real behavioral context beyond the schema by warning that Enter/Return in a chat app SENDS and requires consent, which is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure needed. It remains silent on prerequisites such as whether the target window must be focused first, or whether the key is a real OS-level event.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the verb and format examples come first, with the safety caveat second. Minor waste from inconsistent quoting around the examples, but nothing extraneous.

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 needn't be explained. Still, for a low-level input-injection tool with no annotations and a 20-sibling family, the definition should cover focus requirements and how it differs from hold_key to be fully sufficient.

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 single `key` parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. The examples do establish the accepted format — camel-case key names and "+"-joined modifier chords like "ctrl+c" — which is genuinely more than the bare `string` type. But the chord grammar (modifier ordering, how many modifiers, whether "Enter" vs "Return" both work) is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb ("Press") and resource (a key or chord) and gives concrete examples. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like computer_hold_key or computer_type, though the name and examples make the intent largely inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples (single keys and modifier chords) and there is a useful caution about Enter sending a message in chat apps. However, no explicit guidance on when to prefer computer_hold_key (hold/repeat) or computer_type over this tool, so the agent must infer the boundaries.

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