raxol_send_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the supported input types (characters, special keys, modifiers) and the output behavior (returns updated screen content). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a keystroke tool this is acceptable and adds meaningful behavioral context beyond just the schema.

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 compact and well-structured. It opens with the core action, lists supported key categories in a parenthetical, and provides three clear JSON examples. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or filler.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, what inputs are accepted, and that it returns 'updated screen content'. The absence of a detailed return format is a minor gap, but the examples and schema cover the essential usage context.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating valid character and special key examples, showing modifier usage patterns, and clarifying that 'wait_ms' controls dispatch delay. The examples in the description reinforce and extend the schema definitions.

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 tool's action: 'Sends a keystroke to a headless Raxol session' and explicitly notes it returns updated screen content. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like raxol_screenshot (which only captures screen) and raxol_start/stop (which manage sessions).

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 when you need to send keyboard input to a Raxol session, supported by examples and key types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use raxol_screenshot instead) or any exclusions, leaving the guidance implicit rather than direct.

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