keyboard

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: unicode-safe typing, key aliases, window focusing for reliability, that it does not trigger Hyprland binds, and the allow_auth override. This covers safety and operational traits comprehensively.

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?

Despite length, every sentence is essential and packed with information. The description is well-structured, front-loaded with core purpose, uses clear formatting (vertical bars, examples). No redundancy.

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?

Covers all parameters and usage guidelines thoroughly. Does not describe the output schema or error behavior, but given the tool's nature and existence of output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: action values ('type'/'key'), keys format and aliases, text, window, then options, and allow_auth boolean with behavioral implications. Provides examples and valid values.

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 tool sends keystrokes to the focused app, with actions 'type' or 'key', and can target a specific window. It differentiates from sibling tools (use_bind, hypr) for Hyprland-specific actions, establishing a distinct purpose.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool (for application shortcuts) and when not to (Hyprland binds, workspace actions), directing to siblings use_bind and hypr. Also notes special case of allow_auth for password fields.

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