keyboard_key

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

The description discloses a significant side effect not captured in annotations: the VM remains locked by this session and requires vm_unlock. It also clarifies the actions (press, hold, release) matching the schema enum, adding behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 a front-loaded action and examples, plus a critical side-effect note. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 input tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality, key examples, action variants, and the locking side effect. It lacks error handling or return information, but these are less critical for a fire-and-forget key press tool.

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 has no description coverage (0%), but the description compensates by giving example key values (ENTER, CTRL, LEFT, F1) and naming the actions. It doesn't exhaustively explain the 'key' parameter format or case sensitivity, but provides useful semantics beyond the bare string type.

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 tool presses, holds, or releases a named key with concrete examples (ENTER, CTRL, LEFT, F1). It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'named key' as opposed to keycodes or hotkeys, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over keyboard_type, keyboard_hotkey, or keyboard_keycode. It only mentions a follow-up action (vm_unlock) but no context for tool selection.

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