browser_press

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that a key is pressed, without disclosing whether the action targets the focused element, whether it can trigger page navigation or form submission, or how the key event is delivered. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that sends input to a browser.

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 a single compact sentence that conveys the essential operation and examples. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and no words are wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is minimally adequate: an agent knows what to call and roughly which keys are valid. However, the lack of annotations and the absence of exact key syntax or behavior side effects leave some ambiguity for correct invocation, especially for less obvious keys or modifier combinations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the bare 'key' string parameter. It does so by clarifying that the key must be non-text and by listing valid examples. It stops short of specifying exact key-name syntax or all supported special keys, but it adds substantial meaning beyond 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 ('Press'), the resource ('a non-text key'), and gives concrete examples (Enter, Tab, Escape, arrows). The phrase 'non-text' implicitly distinguishes this from sibling browser_type, making it easy for an agent to identify the tool's role.

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 usage context is implied by 'non-text key' and the examples, so an agent can infer this is for keys that insert no text. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives such as browser_type for text input, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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