press_key

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It merely restates the tool name and offers no details about side effects, whether it requires an active page, how it handles focus, or what happens if 'page' is omitted. This is a tautological description that adds no behavioral insight.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and directly communicates the core action, earning a high score for conciseness even though it lacks depth.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain key press behavior (e.g., whether it's a transient press or long press), how the optional 'page' parameter affects execution, or any return value. The schema describes parameters but not runtime context, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with descriptive parameter details: 'key' includes examples and 'page' is explained. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('keyboard key'), making it easy to understand. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'click' and 'type_text', though it could be more specific about what kind of key (e.g., modifier keys, key combinations).

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 provided on when to use press_key versus alternatives like 'click' or 'type_text'. The description does not mention suitable scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that it is for simple key presses.

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