press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that the key is sent "in the page." It says nothing about whether an element must be focused, whether the target tab must be active, whether the press blocks or returns immediately, or what side effects (navigation, form submit) can result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the examples are the one addition that earns its place by pinning down the key syntax.

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 browser-interaction tool with a second (tabId) parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves out focus requirements, tab targeting, and outcome behavior. An agent could call it but could easily press into the wrong 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%. The examples ("Enter, Escape, Tab, PageDown, Control+A, Shift+Tab") genuinely clarify the format of the `key` parameter beyond the schema's terse description, but `tabId` is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a required-targeting gap unaddressed.

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 and resource ("Press a key or combo... in the page") with concrete key examples (Enter, Escape, Control+A, Shift+Tab) that make the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the adjacent `type` sibling, which is the only real gap.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. An agent must infer that this is for discrete keypresses vs. `type` for text entry, and nothing says what prerequisites (focused element, active tab) are required before pressing.

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