boxes.keyboard

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the key sequence is bounded and allowlisted, which are meaningful constraints beyond the tool name, and it states the running-VM precondition. However, it does not describe behavior on invalid keys, whether holdMs controls key hold duration, or whether the call blocks until input is delivered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, and the key constraints are placed directly after the verb.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important invocation details underspecified: the meaning of holdMs, the contents of the allowlist, and the exact key naming convention expected in the keys array. The core purpose is clear, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call the tool in all cases.

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 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. 'Key sequence' and 'allowlisted' add useful meaning to the keys parameter, and 'bounded' aligns with the maxItems constraint. However, holdMs is not explained in either the schema or the description, leaving its semantics ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('a bounded allowlisted key sequence to a running VM'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also implicitly differentiated from siblings like boxes.mouse and boxes.clipboard by focusing on key sequences rather than pointer or clipboard input.

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 phrase 'to a running VM' implies the precondition that the VM must be running and suggests this tool is for keyboard input, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over sibling input tools like mouse, clipboard, or drag_drop. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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