keyboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it taps the dismiss/hide key, verifies the keyboard closed, reports UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION when no dismiss key exists, never background-taps, and times out after 90s. Behavior for status, enter, and return actions is not covered, but the dismiss workflow is thoroughly disclosed.

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 three front-loaded sentences covering purpose, usage, edge cases, and timeout with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 dismiss workflow is fully described, inspection is mentioned, and output schema handles return values. Minor gaps remain: enter/return semantics are not explicit, and the Android-specific phrasing may not fully align with the broader platform selectors in the schema.

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 baseline is 3 and the description need not repeat parameter docs. It does add action-level meaning for dismiss and status, but enter and return are left to inference from their enum names.

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 identifies the keyboard as the resource and names specific actions: inspect visibility/type, press, and dismiss. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like type or press, so it stops short of full distinction.

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?

It gives explicit usage context for the dismiss path: 'To hide the keyboard, use keyboard dismiss.' It lacks when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools, so there is clear context but no exclusions.

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