wpf_send_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses key traits: OS-level keyboard input, foreground activation, state-changing behavior, and pre-input failure for invalid target resolution. It does not describe timing, return behavior, or focus restoration after execution.

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 front-loaded with purpose, examples, and behavioral warnings, and every listed key/modifier earns its place given the 0% schema coverage. It is dense but not bloated; small readability improvements could split the targeting constraints and key syntax more clearly.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is nearly complete: purpose, targeting, syntax, foregrounding, and failure modes are all covered. It could say more about timing or what happens after the key sequence is sent, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 documents syntax for keys, supported modifiers and key names, exact targeting by element_handle or automation_id, case-sensitive AutomationId matching, and root_handle scoping. This covers all four parameters with meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 and resource: sending a keyboard shortcut or key combination to a WPF element or current focus. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like wpf_click_element and wpf_set_text by explaining keyboard input targeting.

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?

It gives clear targeting rules: use exactly one of element_handle or automation_id, and when both are omitted input goes to current focus. It also explains root_handle scoping and failure for missing or duplicate IDs. It lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools such as using wpf_set_text for text insertion instead of key sequences.

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