sap_send_key

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool modifies state but is not destructive. The description adds that F11/Save requires user confirmation, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other effects like whether the tool waits for a response or possible error handling.

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 three sentences: purpose, common keys with functions, and a special note. No fluff, well structured, and front-loads the action.

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 an output schema, the description covers the main aspects but lacks guidance on usage context relative to siblings. The behavioral note about F11 is helpful. Overall, adequate but not thorough.

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 has 0% description coverage for enum values, so the description compensates well by explaining the function of many keys (e.g., F1=Help, F3=Back, Ctrl+F=Find). However, not all enum values are covered (e.g., F2, F6, F7 are missing from description).

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 'Send a keyboard key' with a specific verb and resource, and lists common keys. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_press_button or sap_click_* which handle different UI interactions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description lists keys but does not provide context like 'use this for keyboard shortcuts instead of clicking buttons' or mention exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the list of keys.

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