key_press

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what happens after pressing (e.g., whether it triggers events, waits for effects, or has side effects like focus changes). For a tool that simulates user input, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of simulating keyboard input and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, interaction with web elements, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 the schema fully documents the parameters (key, modifiers, tabIndex). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of key combinations or when to use tabIndex. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Нажать клавишу или комбинацию клавиш' clearly states the action (press) and target (key or key combination) in Russian, making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'type' or 'click', but the verb 'press' is specific enough to convey the core function.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'type' (for text input) or 'click' (for mouse actions). It lacks context about typical use cases, such as keyboard shortcuts or navigation, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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