ui_keyboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without explaining important contextual behavior, such as whether the key press requires an active/focused element, whether it waits for the UI to respond, what happens on failure, or whether shortcuts are system-dependent. This is minimal transparency.

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, economical sentence that immediately states the action and provides useful examples. It is well front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description and schema together cover the basic 'what' and 'how' for a simple two-parameter tool, and no output schema exists to explain return values. However, the missing usage guidance and the ambiguous handling of composite shortcuts leave the agent without enough context to reliably select and invoke the tool in all cases, especially in a UI-automation context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's shortcut examples like 'Alt+S' and 'Ctrl+Z' may actually mislead an agent into passing the combined shortcut as the key parameter instead of separating key ('s') and modifiers (['alt']). The description does not clarify that modifier keys should be decomposed into the modifiers array, which undermines the otherwise clear 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 states a specific verb ('Press') and a specific resource ('keyboard keys or shortcuts'), with concrete examples like Enter, Escape, Alt+S, and Ctrl+Z. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling mouse-oriented tools like ui_click and ui_mouse_click, and from text-entry tools like ui_type_text.

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 provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives. For example, it does not say to use ui_type_text for entering text, ui_click for mouse interactions, or ui_hover for hovering. The only implication is that this tool handles keyboard input, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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