qemu_keyboard_type

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

The description discloses a significant behavioral trait not captured by annotations: 'VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished.' It also notes the text is 'basic QEMU monitor-compatible', setting expectations on scope. Annotations do not contradict this.

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: the first states the core action, the second gives a critical follow-up instruction. No wasted words; it is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operation, target, and the important lock side-effect. It omits preconditions like VM running or error handling, but the essential context for invoking the tool is present.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It implicitly refers to 'text' but does not explain vm_id or any parameter-specific constraints, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Type basic QEMU monitor-compatible text into the active QEMU display.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'QEMU monitor-compatible' distinguishes it from generic siblings like keyboard_type and qemu_keyboard_key.

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 (typing into the active QEMU display) and mentions the resulting lock, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The reference to 'QEMU monitor-compatible' hints at differentiation but without direct guidance.

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