browser_press_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, which signal that pressing a key can cause side effects. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether it sends an event to the current page or triggers navigation. Given the annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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 a single efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and earns its place, though it could be slightly expanded to include a usage hint without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter fully described in schema, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is functionally complete. However, it lacks any mention of when to use it or what happens after pressing a key, which is a minor gap for an agent deciding between this and browser_type.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter 'key' with a description ('Name of the key to press or a character to generate...'), which already documents its meaning. The tool description adds no additional context beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Press a key on the keyboard' clearly states the verb (press) and resource (a key), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like browser_type, which also involves keys, though it is still specific enough to be 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that browser_type is for typing text or that this tool is for special keys like arrows or modifiers. The description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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