astrax_tecla

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states which application receives the keystroke (active/focused window assumption), whether the call blocks, or what happens if the key string is invalid — all critical for a GUI automation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first, followed by the key examples and repetition range. Efficient, though the parenthetical key list is somewhat long and could be trimmed.

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 no explanation. But for a key-injection tool with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description omits the targeting context (which window/app receives the key) and error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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. It usefully lists example values for 'tecla' (enter, esc, tab, win, backspace, f5, down...) since the schema provides no enum, and it bounds 'repeticiones' to 1-20. However, it omits the accepted string format/casing and the default of 1 for repeticiones.

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 verb and resource ('Pulsa una tecla') and even enumerates valid key names, so an agent immediately knows this presses a single keyboard key. It is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like astrax_atajo (key combinations) or astrax_escribir (text entry), which is exactly where confusion is likely.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus astrax_atajo or astrax_escribir, nor any mention of prerequisites such as a focused window. Usage is only implied by the verb 'pulsa'.

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