pikvm_key

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as blocking behavior, prerequisites (e.g., active PiKVM session), key repeat behavior, or side effects. The description is minimal.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and key elements. No redundant information.

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?

Despite low complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description omits important context like the need for an active session, error handling, and behavior of modifier combinations. Incomplete for a new user.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by specifying JavaScript key codes and giving examples, but does not further clarify parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 keys or key combinations to a remote machine using JavaScript key codes, with examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pikvm_type (for typing text) and pikvm_shortcut (for common shortcuts) by focusing on individual key codes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pikvm_type or pikvm_shortcut. The description does not mention exclusion criteria or context-specific recommendations.

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