glass_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: accepts modifiers and named keys, handles case-insensitivity, rejects unrecognized tokens with an error naming the token, ensures nothing is half-pressed, and releases modifiers after chord completion.

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-structured: starts with examples, then breaks down the format, then describes error behavior and usage context. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 a single string parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: input format, accepted values, behavior on success and failure, and how it differs from the most related sibling. It is complete for the agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the exact format of the chord string, the list of valid modifier names (including aliases), valid key types, and error handling, which the schema only hints at with examples.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Press a key chord' with concrete examples like 'ctrl+s', 'Return'. It clearly distinguishes itself from glass_type by saying 'glass_type is for literal text and cannot express either', which also ties to sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for shortcuts and named keys — glass_type is for literal text and cannot express either.' It also provides detailed format rules, making it clear when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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