Press Key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful context by specifying that the tool dispatches a keyDown/keyUp pair (not just a key press) to the selected tab. However, it lacks details about target focus, whether special keys are supported, or any side effects. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, concise sentence that is well front-loaded with the action verb 'Dispatch.' Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior and target. However, the absence of usage guidelines and parameter semantics leaves gaps, especially given the lack of annotations and schema coverage. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 for parameter explanation, but it does not. The parameter 'key' is named clearly, but the description does not clarify accepted formats (e.g., single character vs. key names like 'Enter'), case sensitivity, or how to specify combinations. The minimal schema only indicates a non-empty string.

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 action: 'Dispatch a keyDown/keyUp pair to the selected tab.' It uses a specific verb and resource, indicating what the tool does. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like type_text or click, the task is distinct enough (keyboard key press) to be understood.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like type_text or click. The description does not mention scenarios where a keyDown/keyUp pair is appropriate, nor does it exclude cases where another tool would be better. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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