press_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (sending a key sequence) without mentioning that keys are dispatched to the active window, that timing or delays might apply, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that operates on UI state.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core action and includes examples. No wasted words; it is as concise as possible while remaining informative.

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 tool that interacts with the active window and has no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits critical context such as window focus requirements, behavior when multiple keys are passed, error conditions, and what (if anything) is returned. Given the tool's simplicity, a more thorough description should exist.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'key' parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description gives two examples but does not explain the full SendKeys syntax, such as how to combine modifiers, escape characters, or represent special sequences beyond the two examples. It adds some value but is incomplete for a robust understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('key sequence through SendKeys syntax'), with concrete examples like {ENTER} or ^a. It effectively distinguishes the tool from the sibling type_text, which handles plain text input, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for special keys and shortcuts via the SendKeys syntax and examples, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like type_text, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., having a focused window). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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