press_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the action and gives examples, but it does not explain how the key press is delivered, whether the page needs focus, or any side effects. The basic behavior is clear, but details are minimal.

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 a single sentence that is directly informative, with examples front-loaded and no filler. Every word 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and examples. It could mention the target of the key press (e.g., active element/page), but the tool is simple enough that the current level is nearly complete.

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 only defines a 'key' string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaningful examples ('Enter', 'Control+a') that illustrate accepted value formats, compensating reasonably for the missing schema-level documentation of the single parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Press') and a specific resource ('a keyboard key or combination'), with concrete examples like 'Enter' and 'Control+a'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools such as click, fill_input, and upload_file.

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 for keyboard interactions, and the examples convey common scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than directive.

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