keyboard

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: expect_hwnd causes a 409 refusal if the foreground window differs, and notes that type is Unicode-safe. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it omits other behaviors such as whether actions are synchronous, error handling beyond 409, or any permission requirements. It covers some but not all behavioral aspects.

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 concise, two sentences long, and front-loads the core purpose and actions. It includes practical examples and a caution note without any fluff, making it highly readable and immediately actionable.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main actions and key parameters but omits details about the interval parameter and the return value (though an output schema exists). For a simple keyboard tool, this may be sufficient for basic use, but it leaves some aspects undocumented, making it not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the action values and giving examples for key (press), keys (hotkey), and text (type), and clarifies the purpose of expect_hwnd. It does not explain interval or the exact format of key names beyond the examples, but it provides enough to use the primary parameters effectively.

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 it controls the keyboard and enumerates the actions (press, hotkey, type, down, up) with concrete examples for each, making its purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from mouse and other input tools. It is a specific verb+resource definition without any tautology.

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?

It provides a usage guideline for the expect_hwnd parameter, advising to use it to avoid typing into the wrong app. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus sibling tools like mouse or get_held, or any exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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