browser_press_key

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 reveals the focus-then-press sequence, but omits details about timeout handling, iframe resolution, special key support, side effects, or return behavior.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and the optional focus behavior is clearly appended without 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?

For a tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient for reliable invocation. An agent would still need to infer accepted key strings, timeout semantics, return values, and how ref, selector, and frameSelector interrelate.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating selector and aria ref are optional focus targets, but it does not explain accepted key values or the meaning of timeout. These important parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 primary action: pressing a keyboard key, with optional focusing on a selector or aria ref first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_type, though it does not explicitly contrast single-key press with text entry.

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 tool versus browser_type, browser_fill, or browser_click. The optional focus behavior implies a common use case, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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