dosbox_send_keys

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states 'Tap one simultaneous chord.' It does not disclose whether the keys are pressed and released, if there is any blocking or timing, whether the action affects the DOSBox state, or if it simulates a key-down/up event. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like action.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the key action ('Tap') and specifies the target ('DOSBox-X QKeyCode names'). No fluff or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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 the tool's complexity (sending simultaneous key chords to a DOSBox-X environment) and absence of annotations or parameter details, the one-liner is incomplete. It omits mention of whether the chord is pressed and released, how to specify modifier keys, or any potential side effects. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential 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 schema has no parameter descriptions and coverage is 0%. The description adds that 'keys' should be QKeyCode names, which is a semantic hint, but it does not explain what QKeyCode names are, how to format them, or provide examples. This minimal information only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action (tap one simultaneous chord) and resource (DOSBox-X QKeyCode names), making its purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like dosbox_type_text or dosbox_read_memory, but 'chord' implies a key combination, which differentiates it functionally from typing text or reading memory.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dosbox_key_event or dosbox_type_text. The description does not mention context, preconditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without decision support.

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