wavexis_press_keys

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

Even with annotations present, those annotations are only false values and do not explain the behavior. The description adds important behavioral context: it dispatches keyDown/keyUp pairs to the page, makes no network requests, and returns a JSON string with status and typed values. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized into short useful pieces: purpose, alternative tools, side effects, and return format. Every sentence adds value and none are 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?

The description explains the main behavior, side effects, and return format, which is strong. However, it does not explicitly mention that text is typed as a string but the session_id must come from an active session; this is only implied by the schema and the sibling tool wavexis_session_open, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 should explain the parameters, but it only broadly describes typing text. It never mentions delay behavior, the required session_id, or the prerequisite active session. The nested schema does contain some property descriptions, but the tool description itself does not compensate for the coverage 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 it types a sequence of characters at the page level without targeting an element, which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from wavexis_key_down/wavexis_key_up for modifier-key control and wavexis_act for natural-language input.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use alternatives: use wavexis_key_down/wavexis_key_up for modifier keys and wavexis_act for natural-language typing. This gives concrete exclusions even though it does not explicitly enumerate every element-targeted sibling tool.

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