press

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether the key press targets the currently focused element, whether it's a single key event or a combination, or any side effects (e.g., triggering form submission on Enter). The example 'Control+S' hints at modifier support, but the description doesn't explain behavior or interaction context.

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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though that brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin for a tool that performs an action in a browser or UI context. It omits crucial context such as where the key press is directed, whether it requires a prior focus action, and potential side effects. An agent would need to infer these details from siblings or trial and error.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'key' fully described including examples of key names and combinations. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('press') and resource ('keyboard key'), which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like click, fill, and type. However, it gives no additional scope or qualifier that would help an agent differentiate from the related 'type' tool (which likely types text) or emphasize the keyboard shortcut aspect implied by the example 'Control+S'.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'type' (which may enter text) and 'click'/'fill', the agent has no explicit direction on choosing 'press' for single key presses or shortcuts. The description is a bare statement of purpose with no usage context.

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