scout_press

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (press a key) and a common use case, but doesn't mention whether the key press is sent to the active element, whether it waits for effects, whether it can fail (e.g., no focused element), or any side effects. For a tool that sends input, 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and examples, then gives a use case. It's concise and readable, though it could add a brief note on key format without bloating.

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 simple input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what happens after the key press, whether a page/session must be active, or how the key should be specified (e.g., exact key names). The session parameter guidance is good, but the core behavior is under-specified for an agent to invoke reliably.

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 50%: the 'key' parameter has no description in the schema, and the description only gives examples (Escape, Tab, Enter) without specifying format (e.g., 'Escape' vs 'Esc' vs key codes). The 'session' parameter is well-described in the schema, so the description adds little there. The description partially compensates for the undocumented 'key' parameter but doesn't fully specify accepted values.

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 clearly states the tool presses a keyboard key and gives examples (Escape, Tab, Enter) plus a use case (closing modals, testing keyboard navigation). It distinguishes from siblings like scout_click and scout_type by focusing on key presses, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 implies when to use it (closing modals, keyboard navigation testing) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like scout_type or scout_click. The session parameter description provides some guidance on when to pass session explicitly, but the main description lacks clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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