Trusted Press Key

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

Goes beyond the annotations (which only cover safety/idempotency) by explaining that real key events are dispatched, how modifiers map (Meta is Command), the macOS editing-shortcut caveat, and that it reports the focused element afterward. Missing details on error behavior or what happens if no selector matches, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core behavior and consequences come first, followed by accepted key formats, platform caveats, and the optional focus behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the macOS editing-shortcut sentence is slightly tangent.

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 5-param, non-idempotent, open-world interaction tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, platform caveats, tab targeting, and focus behavior, and even notes the post-action return value (focused element). Lacks only explicit failure/edge-case handling.

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 baseline is 3; the description nevertheless enriches key format (named keys, single chars, modifier combos like Control+Shift+K) and clarifies that the selector is focused first while omitting it presses into current focus, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Press a key or shortcut') and immediately distinguishes its mechanism from a plain key press by emphasizing 'real key events' with concrete consequences (Enter submits, Tab moves focus, Escape closes). An agent can tell this apart from the sibling press_key without opening the schema.

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?

Provides one concrete prerequisite ('Needs the DevTools engine') and the implied case for use (when synthetic events won't do), plus a note that a tab-changing tool won't fall back to the user's tab. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with the sibling press_key, so the when-to-choose-this-over-alternative guidance is only implied.

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