use_bind

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool executes the bound action directly (not via synthetic keypresses) and that the `then` parameter appends the result. It adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover failure modes, permissions, or side-effect boundaries beyond what the schema implies.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, rationale, use cases, and parameter semantics without filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to correct usage.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, 1 required) and has an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description addresses what, why, when, and both parameters. Minor gaps include an explicit prerequisite that the combo must already exist in the user's binds (though implied by 'from the binds tool') and error behavior.

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 defines `combo` as a keybind combo sourced from the `binds` tool with an example, and lists the valid `then` values ('desktop'|'screenshot'|'ui'|'none') with a note that it appends the result. This is valuable, though the precise effect of each `then` value is not elaborated.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run'), resource ('user's own Hyprland keybinds'), and mechanism ('by its combo'), with a concrete example ('SUPER+F'). It distinguishes itself from synthetic keypresses and references the `binds` sibling, making the tool's niche unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('to drive the owner's configured workflows') and why it should be preferred ('the only reliable way') over synthetic keypresses, which are called out as non-functional. This provides clear when/when-not guidance without needing to enumerate sibling tools.

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