key

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say which window receives the keystroke, whether an app must be focused first, whether the call waits for the target to react, or what expect_window actually verifies — behavior is deferred to type_text's documentation rather than stated.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core purpose before the example list, with no filler sentences. The example enumeration is long but each entry carries real formatting information, so it earns its space.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across four parameters, the description should explain repeat, screenshot_after, and the window-targeting precondition. It only partially covers combo and hand-waves expect_window, so an agent cannot call this confidently in all cases.

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 all four parameters need the description's help. The description usefully documents the combo format with examples and mentions expect_window (though it outsources its meaning), but says nothing about 'repeat' or 'screenshot_after', leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Press a key or chord') and concrete examples ('ctrl+c', 'alt+F4', 'super') plus the accepted keysym format, which clearly delineates it from type_text and hold_key. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance against siblings like type_text (for strings) or hold_key (for press-and-hold). The only routing signal is the implicit contrast between 'press a key' and typing text, plus a cross-reference that 'expect_window works as in type_text', which is a weak proxy for real guidance.

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