wavexis_key_down

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

The description adds a behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations: 'Side effects: Sends a key-down input event to the browser page' and states the return format as a JSON status string. It could go slightly further by noting that a raw keyDown may need to be paired with wavexis_key_up, but the main runtime behavior is clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence says exactly what the tool does, second sentence gives routing guidance, and the final lines state side effects and return format. No sentence is wasted or redundant.

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 low-level event-dispatch tool, the description covers the core invocation context: what it sends, where it sends it, how it should be positioned relative to higher-level typing tools, and what response shape to expect. It could be marginally more complete by noting the active page requirement or the key-up pairing, but the essential context is present.

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?

The tool description contains no parameter-level guidance and does not mention the required session_id, the key parameter, or the modifier toggles. Context reports 0% schema description coverage, and this description does not compensate by explaining the input contract that an agent must satisfy.

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?

Opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Dispatch a raw keyDown event to the active page via CDP.' This clearly identifies what the tool executes and at what level. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing typing flows to wavexis_press_keys and natural-language flows to wavexis_act.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'use wavexis_press_keys for typing text and wavexis_act for natural-language interaction.' This gives the agent concrete routing criteria and keeps the raw keyDown tool scoped to low-level CDP scenarios.

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