ui_keyboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, not how it behaves (e.g., whether it requires focus, simulates key down/up, or may trigger platform shortcuts). There is no mention of side effects, prerequisites, or potential failures, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Press keyboard keys or shortcuts') and includes useful examples. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description provides a basic understanding of its purpose and examples. However, given the absence of annotations and the presence of sibling tools with overlapping functionality, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral details makes the description only minimally complete.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description adds examples of combined shortcuts (e.g., 'Alt+S', 'Ctrl+Z') that illustrate how the 'modifiers' array interacts with 'key', which is helpful. However, this is marginal value beyond the schema descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Press keyboard keys or shortcuts'. It uses a specific verb (Press) and resource (keyboard keys or shortcuts), and provides concrete examples like 'Enter, Escape, Alt+S, Ctrl+Z' that distinguish it from sibling tools such as ui_click (mouse) or ui_type_text (text 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool name and description imply it is for keyboard input, there is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to siblings like ui_type_text or ui_hover. Users must infer that this tool is for pressing keys, not for typing text or mouse actions.

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