keyboard_press

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

The description adds that this uses xdotool key and returns a confirmation string, but it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as that key events go to the currently focused window, that repeated presses can trigger multiple actions, or that side effects depend on the active application. With annotations providing little safety context, the description carries more responsibility than it fulfills.

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 short and front-loads the purpose with useful examples before the Args/Returns block. The Args line is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall the structure is compact and easy to scan.

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 tool with only two parameters, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient to make a correct call. However, it lacks context about focus-dependent behavior, potential side effects of pressing keys, and how to choose between this and sibling tools like keyboard_type or terminal_write.

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 description merely lists 'keys, repeat' without explaining repeat semantics, constraints, or requiredness. The schema contains the actual parameter descriptions and constraints, and because schema description coverage is reported as low, the description does not compensate by adding 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: pressing a key or key combination using xdotool, with concrete examples like 'ctrl+alt+t' and 'Return'. It is distinct from siblings like keyboard_type because it emphasizes key combinations/actions rather than text entry, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 examples imply when to use the tool: when a key or key combination needs to be pressed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for typing text, so usage context is only implied rather than fully stated.

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