desktop_keyboard_hotkey

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Press') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires focus on a specific window, if it simulates key presses vs. system events, potential side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a system interaction 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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes helpful examples. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a system-level keyboard interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error handling, or what happens after execution. For a tool that could have significant side effects, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 'keys' parameter and providing examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 action ('Press') and the resource ('keyboard shortcut') with examples. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like desktop_keyboard_type (which types text) and desktop_mouse_click, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like desktop_keyboard_type or browser_type. It lacks context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The examples imply usage for common shortcuts but offer no explicit usage rules.

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