send_pa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool 'Returns the resulting screen' and that the key number is 1-3. It does not mention attention-key semantics or potential side effects, but for a simple one-parameter send action this is minimally adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action and parameter range appear immediately, and the Args section is clear. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core details: what is sent, the allowed range, and the return value. However, given the sibling context with send_pf, send_enter, and send_keys, an agent still lacks enough guidance to confidently choose send_pa over the alternatives.

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, and it does: it defines 'number' as 'PA key number (1-3),' adding a valid range and domain meaning beyond the bare integer schema. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Send a PA key (1-3).' This is specific and intelligible. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_pf, send_enter, or send_keys, though the term 'PA key' provides some inherent distinction.

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 about when to use send_pa versus the many related send_* tools. The description implies usage only by naming the action, but it does not explain when a PA key is appropriate, when not to use it, or how it differs from PF/Enter/Clear keys.

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