glass_key

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

Beyond the generic annotations, the description discloses valuable behavior: case-insensitive modifier aliases, rejection of unrecognized tokens with an error naming the token, atomicity (nothing is half-pressed), and modifier release on completion. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 dense but well-organized: examples first, then grammar, key types, error semantics, and finally sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: exact syntax, accepted keys, modifier handling, error behavior, and when to choose it over glass_type. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema only provides a single example string, while the description fully explains chord grammar, accepted modifier names, aliases, key categories, case-insensitivity, and error behavior. This adds substantial meaning 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Press a key chord') with concrete examples, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from glass_type. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for shortcuts and named keys and notes that glass_type is for literal text and cannot express either. The chord syntax and modifier rules are also clearly described, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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