computer_press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining the tool's behavior. It states the action and the return format ('JSON response from the API'), but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, focus requirements, or whether the press includes key release behavior.

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 minimal, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundant filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the required inputs are fully explained and an output schema exists. However, the lack of sibling differentiation and behavioral caveats leaves some selection and safety context incomplete, especially given the large set of related computer and mobile tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does: serialno is tied to list_devices and key is explained with concrete examples like Enter or F5. This is sufficient for an agent to supply correct values.

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 specific verb and object: 'Press a single key.' The 'single key' phrasing distinguishes it from sibling concepts like computer_hotkey or computer_type_text, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 is given for when to choose this tool over siblings like computer_hotkey or computer_type_text. The only contextual hint is that serialno comes from list_devices, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use explanation.

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