safari_native_keyboard

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool sends real keypresses, does not activate Safari, runs in background, and produces isTrusted:true events. It does not mention potential side effects like requiring accessibility permissions, but covers essential behavioral traits.

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 rich but somewhat lengthy; however, every sentence contributes essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically from high-level behavior to specifics.

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 keyboard events and trust-gated handlers, the description covers use case, behavior, supported keys, and modifiers. It omits the return value, but no output schema exists, and the description is sufficient for typical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value beyond schema by listing example keys and modifiers. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter and provides common values, though it does not explain modifier combinations in detail.

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 sends an OS-level keypress to Safari without focus, specifies it is for when safari_press_key fails, and lists supported keys and modifiers. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like safari_press_key and safari_type_text.

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 explicitly says when to use it (when JS path fails) and gives examples (Discord, Slack, virtualized editors). It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or compare with other native event tools, but the context is clear.

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