press_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. It discloses the stealth parameter's effect (trusted key event via debugger driver) and lists supported keys. It does not detail side effects, but for a key press action this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 action with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers key, stealth, and use cases. Minor omissions like behavior for unsupported keys or return value do not significantly hinder an agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning by listing allowed values for key and explaining stealth's effect. However, it does not specify exact format (e.g., case sensitivity) or all possible values.

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 it presses a single key on the focused element and lists supported keys (Enter, Escape, Tab, etc.) and common use cases. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like click and 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 explicitly mentions when to use it (submit, dismiss dialogs, tab between fields). It does not list alternatives, but the context from sibling tool names implies other tools for other actions.

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