press_key

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately conveys the core operation and target, but does not mention potential side effects of destructive keys such as DELETE or BACK_SPACE, nor does it clarify behavior beyond the basic key press. The information is adequate but minimal.

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 includes concrete examples and no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 relatively simple tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main limitation is the lack of explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but that is already accounted for in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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 100%, with the key enum, selector description, and strategy defaults fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond naming example keys, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') with a clear resource ('page or element') and specifies special keyboard keys such as ENTER, TAB, ESCAPE, and arrows. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like click_element, fill_element, and hover_element, which serve different interaction purposes.

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 implies usage when special keyboard keys are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over fill_element, click_element, or clear_element. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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