send_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that an event is injected, but does not cover side effects, whether the input is queued or synchronous, required application state, error behavior, or what the tool returns. For an input-injection mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a well-organized bullet list of event types. Every bullet adds useful parameter semantics or event behavior, and there is no 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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description must carry the burden for a 7-parameter tool. It adequately explains event types and parameter usage, but omits when to choose this tool over siblings like send_events and click_button, and lacks behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 itself has 100% parameter description coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful event-type-specific parameter mappings, such as click using x,y,button; key_down using keyCode; text using charCode; and wheel using delta. It also lists common key codes, which supplements the schema's hxd.Key reference.

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 and resource: 'Inject an input event into the running application.' It also enumerates supported event types, making the tool's scope clear. It does not differentiate from the similar sibling send_events or click_button, so it stops 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 description explains what each event type does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_events, click_button, or other input-related siblings. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the application must be connected or focused before injection.

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