keyboard_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond 'sends a key press' it discloses nothing about where the key goes (focused element?), what the verify behavior does, or any side effects or permissions, leaving the three verify parameters entirely unexplained at the description level.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed immediately by the accepted value domain. No filler or repetition.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the required key argument but says nothing about the verify mechanism that governs the other three parameters, so an agent must read the schema to understand default post-press verification.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description still adds real value by listing the complete set of accepted named keys, which the terse schema example ('enter', '66') does not. It adds nothing about verify/verify_poll_ms/verify_timeout_ms, but those are schema-documented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sends a key press') and enumerates the accepted named-key domain, which concretely defines the tool's scope. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling keyboard_input or tap, but the resource is 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?

Usage is implied by the key enumeration but never states when to choose this over keyboard_input (text entry) or tap (coordinate press). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.

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