computer.hotkey

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the core action—simulating a key combination press—and the examples clarify the expected input. It does not discuss key release, focus requirements, or error behavior, but for a simple input-injection tool the described behavior is largely transparent.

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 with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and concrete examples immediately follow. Every sentence in the description earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the parameter format, which is sufficient for invoking it. The only meaningful gap is the lack of guidance for choosing between this and the similar computer.press tool.

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 only says the keys parameter can be a string or an array of strings, so the description adds real value by showing 'ctrl+s' as a string and ['ctrl', 'shift', 't'] as a list. It compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it could list more valid key names.

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 opens with the specific action 'Press a key combination' and immediately shows the accepted input formats, making the resource and intent clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling computer.press, which may also be used for key input, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'key combination' implies this tool is for multi-key shortcuts, and the examples reinforce that. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer computer.press or other siblings, and no exclusions.

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