Press keys

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the accepted key-name grammar (ctrl+c, alt+x, f5) but says nothing about whether the press is synchronous, whether it targets the foreground process, what happens on an unrecognized key name, or whether the terminal must already be attached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core operation first and the illustrative example trailing; nothing is redundant. The trailing '...' after 'a' is slightly loose but conveys the open-ended key set efficiently.

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 two-parameter input tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what to pass and roughly why. It stops short of covering failure modes, return behavior, or any prerequisite state, which leaves an agent guessing at edge cases.

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 coverage is 50%: `terminal` is documented in the schema, but `keys` is a bare string array with no item documentation. The description compensates well by enumerating the valid key tokens and showing that modifier combinations are expressed as 'ctrl+c'/'alt+x', which is exactly the missing semantics for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Press named keys in a terminal') plus the accepted key vocabulary, so the operation is unambiguous. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like herdr_send or herdr_interrupt, leaving the agent to infer that this is key-level input rather than text or a signal.

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 parenthetical example ('to answer a dialog with down, enter') implies the intended usage pattern but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. Nothing says whether to prefer this over herdr_send for typing text or over herdr_interrupt for breaking out of a process.

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