chrome_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention tab activation/focus behavior, whether it waits for page load, or what happens on invalid keys. The background parameter behavior is only in the schema, not the description, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and allowed inputs. No waste, and it avoids redundant details.

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 8 parameters including nested modifiers and multiple targeting methods, but the description provides no guidance on how to target a tab (targetId vs urlIncludes vs titleIncludes), modifier usage, background behavior, or snapshot inclusion. Without an output schema or annotations, this is notably incomplete for correct invocation.

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 adds almost no parameter meaning beyond the schema. It only lists allowed key values; it does not explain targetId, modifiers, background, maxElements, or includeSnapshot. With 63% schema coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters but does not.

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 action (send a keyboard key), the target (existing Chrome tab), and the specific allowed keys (Enter, Escape, Tab, etc., or one character). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like chrome_click or chrome_type.

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 sending single keys or key combinations, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like chrome_type (typing text) or chrome_fill. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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