press

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

With only openWorldHint, the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that `target` is focused first (a real side effect) and that keys fire in order, but says nothing about whether keystrokes go to the focused element or the page, timing/delays, or failure behavior if a selector isn't found.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the examples replace paragraphs of format explanation. The trailing fragment "target is focused first" is terse but purposeful rather than sloppy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description ideally would say what comes back (the `snapshot` param hints at an "effect summary" but this is never explained). For an open-world input tool with 4 params and only one annotation, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps around targeting and results.

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 coverage is 50%: `tab` and `snapshot` are documented in the schema, but `keys` and `target` are raw. The description compensates well for both — chord syntax like "Control+a" and ordered sequences for `keys`, and the focus-first semantics of `target` — which the schema alone would not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Press keys or chords in order") and the four examples make the exact input format unambiguous. It never names the sibling `type` tool to contrast keyboard input with text entry, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 this applies (keyboard shortcuts, navigation keys, ordered sequences), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use `press` instead of `type`/`fill_form`, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the boundary itself.

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