send_shortcut

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'DESTRUCTIVE.' It adds valuable context by explaining that power chords are classified separately and require a different environment variable, ensuring a reboot cannot slip through the HID gate. This goes beyond the structured annotation data.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and example, then adds gating context. Every sentence carries meaningful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the essential syntax and permission gating, but leaves confirm and profile semantics unexplained. Since there is no output schema, return behavior is not described, which is acceptable for this tool type. The gaps are mainly parameter-related, not overall completeness.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'keys' with examples of valid key chords, but entirely omits 'confirm' and 'profile'. These parameters remain undefined in both schema and description, creating ambiguity about confirmation behavior and profile selection.

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 identifies the action ('send a key chord') and the resource (comma-separated kvmd key codes), with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like press_key and ctrl_alt_delete by explaining effect-based gating, making the purpose specific and 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 provides context on when the tool applies by explaining the effect-based gating (power vs. HID) and required environment variables. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like type_text or press_key, but the gating clarifies the conditions for use and exclusion, which is sufficient for most agents.

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