key_press

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description itself suggests a physical key press, but it does not elaborate on potential consequences (e.g., triggering actions with side effects). However, the description's simplicity combined with the annotation is adequate; it would benefit from noting that pressing a key may have irreversible effects.

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, short sentence with examples, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient and contains no 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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action but leaves parameter details to the schema. It lacks guidance on the 'edge' and 'confirm' semantics and potential side effects, which is a gap for a tool with a destructive hint.

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 low (33%) – only 'key' is described. The description does not explain the 'edge' or 'confirm' parameters, but these are relatively self-explanatory given the enum and boolean type. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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'), the resource ('Eos hardkey'), and the method ('by OSC name'), with concrete examples. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'cue_go' and 'macro_fire' because it targets hardkeys rather than cues or macros.

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 implies usage for pressing hardkeys, but does not specify when to prefer this over alternatives like 'eos_command' or when not to use it (e.g., for software keys vs hardkeys). No explicit exclusions are given.

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