Focus a window and send key sequences (verified)

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does mention the process of resolving and verifying focus before injecting keys, and that it uses wtype. However, it fails to disclose error handling (e.g., what happens if focus verification fails), potential side effects (e.g., sending destructive keys like Ctrl+Q), or any permissions/requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and key format, then a usage example. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff. The structure is clean and efficient.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema, so the description should cover parameter semantics, error behavior, and return values. It explains only the 'keys' parameter and gives a use case, but omits explanation of 'match' and 'address', what happens on success/failure, and any return information. This is insufficient for a tool of this 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?

The schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'keys' has a description). The description adds valuable detail for the 'keys' parameter, explaining the format and providing examples. However, it completely omits explanation of 'match' and 'address' parameters, leaving them undefined. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate for these gaps but does not, resulting in a low score.

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 capability: injecting keyboard shortcuts into any window, with the process of resolving and verifying focus first. It distinguishes itself from siblings like window_focus (which only focuses) by mentioning key injection via wtype, and provides concrete examples of valid key sequences. This makes 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 explicitly suggests a use case: 'For menus and TUI navigation (e.g. ctrl+p in opencode)', which gives clear context on when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives such as window_focus or hypr_dispatch, so it lacks exclusions.

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