keyevent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing beyond the basic action—no side effects, blocking behavior, key format expectations, or error handling. The one-line description offers no meaningful behavioral context for a mutation-type operation.

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 that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately minimal, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and an output schema that covers return values, the description still fails to address parameter semantics or behavioral context. For a simple two-parameter tool it is somewhat complete in scope, but the total absence of supplementary guidance makes it inadequate for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate. 'Key event' hints that 'key' refers to the key to send, but it does not explain valid key formats (e.g., KEYCODE_* vs symbolic names) or how 'device' should be specified (serial, ID, etc.), leaving the agent under-informed.

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') and resource ('an Airtest key event'), with a platform qualifier ('primarily for Android'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like touch/swipe by the nature of a key event, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like touch, swipe, or start_app. 'Primarily for Android' is a weak scope qualifier, not a usage directive, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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