press_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the action and gives examples. It does not describe where the key event is sent, whether it requires focus, what side effects may occur, or what the result/return is.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action and provides examples efficiently.

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 action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core information, but lacks context about focus/target element, whether all modifiers are supported, and any potential page-changing side effects. An agent can likely invoke it correctly for the common case, but may misjudge its effect on the page.

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 already documents the key parameter as 'Key name', and the description adds concrete accepted formats (Enter, Escape, Control+a), clarifying modifier syntax and valid key names. This goes beyond the schema, giving the agent examples that reduce invocation errors.

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?

Description states a specific verb (Press) and resource (key or combo) with concrete examples such as Enter, Escape, and Control+a, making the tool's primary function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like type_text or click, but the key-combo phrasing makes the distinction implicit.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use press_key instead of related input tools such as type_text, click, or paste_text. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions; the description only states what the tool does.

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