press_keys

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does add that the app is 'brought to the front first,' but omits what happens when 'app' is empty and says nothing about required OS accessibility permissions for synthetic key events, which are material for a keyboard-injection tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact Args block. Every element earns its place; the docstring-style formatting is slightly heavier than prose but not wasteful.

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 simple two-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and focus behavior. The remaining gaps (permission prerequisites, behavior when 'app' is omitted) are minor but real.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: 'combo' is documented with syntax ('keys joined by "+"') plus concrete examples ('cmd+s', 'escape', 'left'), and 'app' is explained with an example and a 'Recommended' marker. Only the omitted-app behavior is left unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a keyboard shortcut to an app') and adds a routing clause, 'for actions with no dedicated tool,' that implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like close_browser_tabs or media_control. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tools an agent should prefer.

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?

'For actions with no dedicated tool' gives a clear condition for reaching for this tool over the specialized siblings. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided, but the when-to-use context is present.

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