zen_keypress

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

With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info: synthetic event, modifiers, text insertion, default target. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., triggering event listeners, navigation) or whether the event is trusted.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and a structured bullet list for parameters. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan.

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 no annotations or output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers most parameters but omits tab_id. It is adequate for a keyboard event tool but could be more comprehensive.

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%, but the description explains 4 of 5 parameters (key, modifiers, text, selector) with examples and default values. The 'tab_id' parameter is not mentioned, which is a gap.

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 dispatches a synthetic keyboard event, specifies modifiers, and text insertion. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zen_click or zen_type by focusing on keypress events and providing examples of key names.

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 implies usage for keyboard events but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like zen_type or zen_focus. No exclusions or scenarios are given.

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