Press keys

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the explicit set of refused shortcut classes, which tells the agent some invocations will be blocked.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the core action and its examples are front-loaded and the constraint follows. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the mutation semantics. The description is complete enough for a 2-parameter action tool, with the only gap being no positive routing guidance versus typing tools.

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 100% and the schema already documents both the chord format and the in-order list behavior, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('press a key chord') with concrete examples ('cmd+s', 'enter', 'tab') and covers the multi-chord case. It is clearly distinct from a text-typing tool, though it never names the sibling (e.g. type_text) it could be confused with.

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 refusal list ('quit, log-out, lock, task-manager and run-dialog shortcuts are refused') gives an implicit when-not boundary, which is useful. However, there is no positive guidance on when to choose this over click/type_text, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a prior observation.

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