keyboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well by detailing the dismiss algorithm: taps the dismiss key only when exposed, verifies closure, reports UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION when no dismiss key exists, and never attempts background taps. This is specific and honest about limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague content.

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?

The description covers the critical dismiss workflow and its failure mode, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, it doesn't elaborate on the status inspection path or note that the 'Android' mention may not apply to all platforms listed in the schema. Still, for a keyboard tool with moderate complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 96%, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The description adds a bit of meaning to the 'action' parameter by explaining the dismiss behavior, but it does not elaborate on the 'status' action or other parameters, keeping it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's dual purpose: inspect Android keyboard visibility/type or press/dismiss the keyboard. It uses specific verbs ('inspect', 'press/dismiss') and names the resource ('keyboard'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other device functions.

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 explicitly tells users to use 'keyboard dismiss' for hiding the keyboard and clarifies the behavior when no dismiss key exists ('reports UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION'). This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't mention alternative tools like 'back' or 'press' for keyboard dismissal.

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