press_key_sequence

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the tool is understood to be mutating. The description adds the 'safe' qualifier for key events and the concept of timed delays, but it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites like device connection, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the key information: what it does and when to use it. The example is illustrative without being verbose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage scenario. The schema covers parameter details, so the description need not repeat them. It lacks information about return values, but that is not critical for a key event tool. Overall, the description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 50% because the description references 'sequence' with an example but omits 'device_serial.' The example 'BACK, wait 1s, BACK' adds practical meaning to the sequence parameter beyond the schema. However, it does not compensate for the lack of description for device_serial, and the schema already provides basic defaults and descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Send a timed sequence of safe, named Android key events.' It distinguishes from sibling 'press_key' by emphasizing 'timed sequence' and 'precise intervals,' making the tool's unique purpose explicit.

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 provides a clear intended use case: 'Use this for gestures requiring precise intervals.' It gives a concrete example ('BACK, wait 1s, BACK') that illustrates the timing aspect. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context from siblings and the example is sufficient.

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