ghost_tab_press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the key is sent to the focused element and that modifiers are limited to Alt/Ctrl/Meta/Shift, which is useful. It does not explain what happens if no element is focused, whether the press also triggers default browser actions, or what the tool returns.

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 two short sentences with no filler; the core action and examples come first, and modifiers are added as a compact second clause. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

Despite its concise clarity, this is not enough for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations. The agent is left guessing about the required tab identifier and optional browser value, as well as the return/error behavior, so the definition is not self-sufficient.

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 has zero descriptions, so the tool description must explain parameters. It provides semantic detail for key (with examples) and modifiers (allowed values), but leaves tab and browser underspecified—an agent still has to infer how to identify a tab or choose a browser instance.

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 states the action as 'Send a key' to 'the tab's focused element,' which clearly identifies a keyboard-press operation scoped to a tab. The examples of possible keys and modifiers help an agent distinguish it from text-typing or clicking siblings like ghost_tab_type and ghost_tab_click, 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?

The intended use is implied: use this tool when a single key press needs to be delivered to the element currently focused in a tab. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool is preferred for related actions such as typing text, clicking, or scrolling.

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