Tecla

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Pressing keys can be a destructive act (Enter submits forms, Control+A selects, arrow keys navigate) and may trigger page navigation or state changes, but the description says nothing about side effects, error conditions, or the return value. For an un-annotated interaction tool, this is a meaningful 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with useful examples and zero filler. The examples are compact and immediately informative. Slightly more structure (e.g., separating the key-format hint) would help, but the current form is efficient.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover the mutation/safety profile and return behavior, but it covers neither. Pressing a key is potentially destructive and may produce side effects, and an agent has no idea what the tool returns. For a two-parameter tool with one required parameter, the description under-specifies.

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 50% — the key parameter has no schema description, while tabId does. The description's key examples (Enter, Escape, ArrowDown, Control+A) partially compensate by hinting at acceptable key formats and modifier syntax. However, tabId is never mentioned in the description, so the compensation is only partial against the coverage gap.

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 states a clear verb+resource action: 'Aperta uma tecla na página' (presses a key on the page). The concrete examples (Enter, Escape, ArrowDown, Control+A) make the intent unmistakable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with arc_type, but the distinction between pressing a key and typing text is reasonably inferable from the examples.

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 siblings like arc_type (typing text) or arc_click (clicking elements). The description implies keyboard interaction but never states a selection rule, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must guess whether arc_press or arc_type is appropriate for a given input task.

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