send_vm_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the VM must be running, if the key event is asynchronous, permission requirements, or potential side effects. The description is too sparse for a mutation-like action.

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 extremely concise—two lines plus a bulleted list of parameters—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and followed by necessary 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?

Despite simplicity, the description omits behavioral context: no mention of return values (though output schema exists), preconditions, or error states. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves the agent underinformed about execution expectations.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the description lists each parameter with a short explanation and an example for 'key' (e.g., 'ctrl-alt-delete'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names, but it does not specify allowed values or format constraints. Adequate but not extensive.

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 action ('Send a key event to a VM') with a concrete example ('ctrl-alt-del') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_vm_monitor_command. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running) or when not to use it (e.g., for monitor commands). Missing contextual cues for tool selection.

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