press_key

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only mentions repetition via `times`; it does not explain whether the key press targets the focused element, how the optional `selector` interacts, what side effects occur, or what the tool returns. This is a significant transparency gap for an input-injection tool.

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 a single sentence with concrete examples and the repeat behavior included. It has no filler or redundant phrasing and is efficiently front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to cover parameter meaning, preconditions, and invocation context. It covers the core key-sending action and `times`, but omits `selector` semantics, focus requirements, and any guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving important gaps for the agent to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It illustrates possible `key` values and explains `times` as a repetition count, but `selector` is completely unexplained and accepted key-string syntax is only hinted at through two examples. Agents cannot confidently construct valid parameters.

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 states the action directly with 'Send keyboard keys' and gives concrete examples like 'Enter' and 'Control+a', making the core purpose clear. It does not contrast itself with sibling tools such as type, but the resource and verb are unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use press_key versus type, focus_element, or click, and offers no exclusions or preconditions. The examples imply it is intended for special keys and shortcuts, but that is implicit rather than explicit.

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