keyboard

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. For example, it doesn't state if the tool returns the keyboard status, what happens on dismissal, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with 18 parameters.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, it sacrifices informativeness; a tool with 18 parameters needs more than two words to be effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameter roles, expected behavior, or return values, making it nearly useless for an AI agent.

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 94%, so the structured definition is rich, but the description adds no value beyond stating the tool's purpose. It does not mention the critical 'action' parameter that controls inspect vs dismiss, nor guide usage of the many device selection parameters.

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 two actions (inspect or dismiss) and identifies the resource (keyboard). However, 'inspect' is vague and could be more specific (e.g., check visibility status). It distinguishes the tool from siblings as no other tool targets the keyboard directly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'type' or 'click'. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the keyboard must be visible, or when to prefer this tool over others.

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