key_combo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never says where the keystrokes are delivered (focused window, active app, or captured process), whether the call blocks until delivery, or whether it fails silently. The examples convey accepted syntax but no runtime behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an inline example pair; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 an OS-level input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain delivery target and focus requirements. As written, an agent cannot tell what state the machine must be in for the combination to land 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 50%: the 'background' parameter is self-documented, but 'key' is a bare string in the schema. The description's examples ("cmd+c", "shift+tab") supply the chord syntax that the schema omits, adding real value, but it doesn't cover key names or multi-modifier ordering.

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 a specific verb (simulate) and resource (key combination) and gives two concrete examples, which lets an agent distinguish it from type_text. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus type_text or batch_actions, and no mention of prerequisites such as the target window needing focus. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and examples.

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