gmod_send_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose the Windows-only platform constraint plus the accepted key syntax. However, it omits behavioral preconditions such as whether the target window must be focused first (a sibling gmod_focus_window exists) and whether the call blocks or requires the game to be running.

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 compact sentences, with the platform constraint and purpose front-loaded before the format details. Efficient, though the format/modifier list partly duplicates the schema's parameter description.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, platform and syntax adequately. It still leaves the focus/precondition question open, which is the main thing an agent would need before invoking it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by supplying a concrete worked example ('status{ENTER}') that shows how to mix literal text and special keys, which the schema does not demonstrate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: sending key presses into the Garry's Mod window, with a platform qualifier ([Windows only]) and the exact SendKeys format. It is distinguishable from gmod_execute_rcon / gmod_execute_lua / gmod_console_command, though it never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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 'Windows only' note is a real usage condition and the SendKeys example implies UI-level input, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance. An agent must infer that this is for simulating keyboard input rather than issuing commands via the console/rcon tools.

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