browser_hotkey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key limitation that browser-chrome shortcuts are not reachable because CDP drives the page, not the browser UI. It also states that editing shortcuts act on the page, but it does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or whether the action waits for page responses.

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 compact and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and a clear Args/Returns format. The additional context about editing shortcuts and browser-chrome limitations is relevant and earns its place without padding.

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 two-parameter hotkey tool, the description covers the essential aspects: how to obtain serialno, the format of keys, a usage example, and the return type. It omits a list of valid modifier keys (e.g., Meta, Control, Shift) but that is not strictly necessary for a simple hotkey action. The presence of an output schema (though not provided) reduces the need to detail return structure.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It defines serialno as 'the browser device serialno, from list_devices' and keys as 'the keys to press together', with a concrete example. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and clarifies the expected format.

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 action ('Press keys together') with a concrete example ('Meta', 'a' to select all). It distinguishes itself from browser-chrome shortcuts by explaining that CDP drives the page, not the browser UI, and specifies that editing shortcuts act on the page, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by noting that editing shortcuts (select-all, cut, copy, undo, redo) act on the page and that browser-chrome shortcuts like Control+t are not reachable. It also directs users to get serialno from list_devices, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., computer_hotkey) or give a when-not-to-use beyond the browser-chrome exclusion.

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