Type Keystrokes in Guest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful prerequisite (macOS Accessibility permission for VMware Fusion) and hints at its GUI-interaction nature. However, it does not disclose whether keystrokes are delivered to the foreground guest application, whether VMware Tools are required, or what happens if the guest is busy or not ready.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second gives a usage scenario and a prerequisite. Information is front-loaded and 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main essentials: what it does, when to use it, and a key permission requirement. It could be slightly more complete by noting that keystrokes go to the guest's current UI focus, but the given context is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (vm and keystrokes), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond restating that keystrokes are sent to the guest; it does not clarify formatting, special keys, or timing. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Send keystrokes') and target ('guest VM'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly tying it to 'GUI automation' rather than command/program execution tools like guest_run_command.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful for GUI automation when combined with vm_capture_screen.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer guest_run_command or guest_run_program instead, though the GUI-automation framing partially implies this distinction.

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