GhostDesk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits by specifying accepted key names, examples, and return format, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. It adds useful context but is not comprehensive for a tool that interacts with system input.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by details on accepted inputs and examples, and ending with return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's complexity (interacting with system keys) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects or error cases, but it's sufficient for basic usage.

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 has 0% description coverage with one parameter 'keys' of type string. The description compensates fully by explaining the semantics: it defines what 'keys' means (key or combination), lists accepted friendly names, and provides examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Press') and resource ('a key or key combination'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'key_type' (which likely types text) and mouse-related tools by focusing on key presses. The description is precise about what the tool does.

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 clear context by listing accepted friendly names and examples, which implicitly guides usage for key presses. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'key_type' or other input tools, missing explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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