perch_press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: input is delivered to whatever element currently holds focus rather than to a target the caller names. Beyond that it says nothing about whether the press triggers navigation, whether combos are supported, or what is returned on failure.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the scope, with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant padding.

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 tool is simple, with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description is close to sufficient. It nonetheless omits the focus prerequisite and any indication of response behavior, which are the main things an agent needs to sequence this call correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including 'Key name, e.g. \'Enter\''. The description's example keys (Enter, Tab, Escape) merely restate the schema's own example, and the 'frame' parameter (preview/editor) is not addressed at all, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (press) applied to a specific resource (a named key) and names the target ('the focused element'), so the agent immediately knows this is a keyboard-input tool rather than text entry. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar sibling perch_type, which types text, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the prerequisite that something must already be focused, and no routing to the adjacent tools (perch_type, perch_click). 'Focused element' faintly implies a precondition but nothing is stated explicitly.

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