key_tap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states only the basic action and omits important traits: whether tap is atomic press+release, whether hold_ms extends the press, whether the active window must be focused, and whether there are side effects or timing constraints.

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 wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate in structure, though it borders on under-specification given the missing usage and parameter details.

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 two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple closely related siblings, the description is not complete enough. It lacks behavioral details, parameter meaning for hold_ms, and any differentiation from key_down/key_up.

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 should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the required 'key' parameter beyond the enum, and it entirely omits 'hold_ms', leaving its purpose and interaction with the tap behavior unclear.

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 ('Tap') and resource ('a key on the virtual keyboard'), making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like key_down, key_up, key_release, or pad_press, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when this differs from a press-and-release pair.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use key_tap versus key_down/key_up/key_release, nor any stated prerequisites such as target focus or whether tap means a press-and-release sequence. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Tap'.

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