keyboard

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: unicode-safe typing, key combo format and aliases. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but provides sufficient detail for typical use.

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 with two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and follows with examples, containing no redundant or filler content.

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 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description covers the main purpose, actions, and prerequisite. The existence of an output schema means return values are not required in the description, but details on error behavior or parameter validation could enhance completeness.

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%, but the description adds meaning: it explains the action parameter values ('type' and 'key') and how keys and text relate to actions, with concrete examples. It does not fully enumerate all allowed values but compensates effectively.

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 keyboard input to the focused window, with specific actions ('type' for text, 'key' for combos). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pointer and screenshot by focusing on keyboard interaction.

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 includes a prerequisite ('focus via hypr first'), guiding the agent to ensure a window is focused before use. It implies when to use each action but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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