key_press

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pressing a key but lacks critical behavioral details: it does not specify if this is a read-only or mutative operation (likely mutative), what happens if the simulator is not running, whether the key press is instantaneous or held, or any error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by helpful examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutative action with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and keycode examples but misses details on behavioral traits, parameter usage for 'duration' and 'simulatorUuid', and expected outcomes. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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. It explains the 'keyCode' parameter by providing common examples (e.g., 40=Return), which adds essential meaning not in the schema. However, it does not address 'duration' or 'simulatorUuid' parameters, leaving gaps in understanding their roles and formats.

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 specific action ('Press a single key by keycode') and resource ('on the simulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'key_sequence' (multiple keys) and 'type_text' (text input). It provides concrete examples of keycodes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'on the simulator' and listing common keycodes, which helps differentiate it from tools like 'button' or 'tap' for UI interactions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'key_sequence' or 'type_text', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a running simulator.

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