safari_press_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action and supported modifiers, but omits any side effects, focus requirements, or interaction with the tab receipt. The receipt parameter is documented only in the schema, not the description, and there is no mention of how the key press interacts with page state.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences that front-load the primary action and enumerate the key categories and modifiers. Every word contributes to the basic understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics. However, it lacks contextual depth: it does not mention when to prefer this tool over sibling keyboard tools, nor does it explain the role of the receipt parameter in pinning to a tab, which is relevant for correct invocation in multi-tab scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a list of example keys and modifiers, but this largely duplicates the schema's own parameter descriptions. It provides marginal additional clarity, such as implying that single characters are valid, but does not compensate for any missing guidance beyond the 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 verb 'Press' and the resource 'keyboard key', with concrete examples of keys and modifiers. It communicates the core function effectively, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like safari_native_keyboard, which likely performs similar actions.

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 such as safari_native_keyboard or safari_type_text. It does not mention scenarios where a simple key press is appropriate versus more complex input, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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