send_keys

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

The description goes beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing key non-obvious behaviors: unknown tokens are typed as literal text (not errors), and arrow keys automatically adapt to the app's cursor-key mode (SS3 vs CSI) for curses navigation. This gives the agent insight into edge cases that wouldn't be evident from the schema or annotations alone.

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 relatively long but all content is functional: examples, token list, combos, and two critical behavioral notes (literal text, arrow-key adaptation). It is front-loaded with examples and well-structured. While it could be slightly more concise, it avoids redundancy and earns its length.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the tool's complex input format comprehensively, including edge cases like literal text and arrow-key modes. The main gap is the unexplained 'sid' parameter and lack of any note about return behavior or errors. Given the tool's complexity, the description is largely complete but has small omissions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It thoroughly explains the 'keys' format, including examples, named tokens, combinations, and literal fallback behavior. However, it entirely omits the 'sid' parameter, which is not self-explanatory from its name/type alone. Thus, only half of the parameters are semantically enriched, leaving a clear 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Send key tokens' with concrete examples (["Down", "Down", "Enter"], ["C-c"]). It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_text/send_line by focusing on key tokens (special keys, combos) rather than arbitrary text. The comprehensive list of named tokens leaves no ambiguity about what constitutes a key token.

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?

The description provides detailed semantics but does not explicitly compare to alternatives. It implies usage when you need to send key presses, combos, or arrow keys, and notes that unknown tokens are typed as literal text, suggesting overlap with send_text. However, no explicit 'use send_text when you want to type text' guidance is given, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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