keyboard_hotkey

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, but the description discloses a critical side effect: the VM remains locked and requires vm_unlock to be called. It also specifies the release order behavior. This goes beyond annotations and adds significant value. However, it doesn't mention other potential side effects or error conditions, so a 5 would be too generous.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and the warning is concise. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the core behavior plus the critical lock side effect. However, it lacks details on valid key names and when to choose this over other keyboard tools. Since there is no output schema, the absence of return-value explanation is acceptable. Overall it is minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 description explains that the array order determines press order (and reverse for release), which is useful. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a 'named key', provide examples, or reference sibling keyboard tools for naming conventions. With 0% schema description coverage, this omission leaves the parameter ambiguous.

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 operation: pressing named keys sequentially and releasing in reverse order. This distinguishes it from siblings like keyboard_key (single key press) and keyboard_type (text entry). The mention of VM lock adds additional context without confusion.

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?

It provides the core behavior but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like input_batch or keyboard_key. The lock note implies a session context, but there are no clear 'when to use' or 'instead of X' statements. It offers less guidance than the high-standard examples.

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