リモコンキー送信

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful behavioral fact—multiple keys are sent sequentially—and lists acceptable keys. However, it says nothing about return values, error conditions, permissions, or what side effects occur on the target device.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence followed by the key list. There is no filler, and the long key enumeration is necessary input vocabulary rather than unnecessary 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?

For a simple send operation, the key input and device defaulting are covered adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves operational ambiguity around expected responses, failure behavior, and when to prefer a sibling tool such as media_control.

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 schema only describes the keys parameter with examples, while the description enumerates the complete set of valid key names and explains that arrays are sent in order. That is meaningful semantic value beyond the structured schema. The device parameter is already fully documented in 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 action: send remote control button operations, and it enumerates the exact key vocabulary an agent can use. This makes it easy to tell apart from mouse or text-input siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like send_mouse, media_control, or insert_text. The key list implies remote-button scenarios, but no exclusions, alternatives, or decision criteria are provided.

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