hotkey

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the real-keyboard nature, approval behavior in safe mode, lab-mode prompting behavior, default browser tab foregrounding and verification, and the special desktop/native-UI case for activate_session='none'.

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 focused paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then adds mode, focus, and session guidance. It is efficient, though the environment-variable detail (BROWSERTAP_LAB_NO_ELICIT) adds some verbosity.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the key format, session targeting, focus behavior, approval modes, and the special desktop/native case. It could be slightly more explicit about what happens when no session_id is provided or what output an agent should expect, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: plural key examples for keys_csv, an explicit recommendation for session_id when targeting browser input, and a clear constraint for activate_session='none'. It does not explain all possible session_id formats or the full range of activate_session values, but it covers the important guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a hotkey chord ... via the real keyboard.' It includes concrete examples ('command,l', 'ctrl,shift,p') and clearly distinguishes this from mouse or text-input tools by emphasizing real-keyboard delivery.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, including safe-mode vs lab behavior and the advice to prefer an explicit session_id for browser input. It also gives an explicit exclusion for activate_session='none', but it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use hotkey in favor of another input method.

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