Releases all held keys at once to recover from stuck or unknown input state, such as when a caller dies mid-hold.
Release every held key at once — the unstick button, for when a caller died mid-hold or state is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key side effect: it releases ALL held keys, not a targeted one, which is the critical behavioral fact. It omits whether a no-op occurs when nothing is held and whether it reports which keys were released.
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 sentence with the action up front and the metaphor-plus-condition trailing. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 parameterless recovery tool with no output schema, the description says enough to invoke it confidently. Only the return/feedback behavior after release is unstated, a minor gap at this complexity.
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?
Zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline applies; the description correctly adds no spurious argument talk.
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?
Specific verb and resource ('Release every held key'), with scope made explicit ('at once') that separates it from the single-key sibling key_up. An agent can pick this over key_up without opening a schema.
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?
Gives a clear triggering condition: caller died mid-hold or key state is unknown. It does not name key_up or key_tap as the normal-path alternative, so the routing is implied rather than stated, but the emergency context is unmistakable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.