as_ui_send_keys

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

Annotations indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds that it 'sends real keystrokes' and captures a verification screenshot. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the side effects. It could mention potential UI disruptions, but the added value is substantial.

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 concise, with four sentences covering core action, usage context, parameters, and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output format. It mentions the screenshot for verification. However, it does not explain the 'Focus Android Studio' action in detail or prerequisites like IDE running, leaving minor gaps for a destructive tool.

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's description includes a summary of the `params` structure and highlights that `confirm` must be true. However, the input schema already describes each parameter in detail. With 0% schema description coverage reported, the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 'Focus Android Studio and send a raw SendKeys sequence', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like as_adb_input and as_ui_invoke_action by focusing on keystrokes to the IDE.

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 explicitly positions this tool as a 'lower-reliability fallback' and advises to 'prefer the CLI/Gradle/ADB tools', giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not list explicit scenarios where not to use it.

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