browser_press_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and omits any details about side effects, whether it operates on the current page, or whether it supports modifiers or key combinations. This is minimal transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear, though it could arguably include more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description is somewhat adequate, but it lacks important operational context such as the fact that it operates on the current browser page and the absence of any mention of return values or waiting behavior. The presence of many sibling tools also increases the need for clearer differentiation, which is missing.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description of the 'key' parameter with examples ('Enter', 'Tab', 'a', 'ArrowLeft'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Press a key on the keyboard' clearly states the action (press) and the target (a key on the keyboard), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like browser_type, but the action is specific enough to be self-explanatory.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_type for text input or browser_click for mouse interaction. The description lacks any contextual cues about suitable scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., needing a focused element).

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