chrome_use_press

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says to press a key. It does not disclose whether the active page or focused element receives the key, whether this can submit forms or trigger navigation, what permissions are needed, or how errors manifest. The schema descriptions cover some parameter-specific behavior, but the core action's side effects and preconditions are not explained.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and useful examples. It is appropriately sized for a simple action, though its brevity means some important context is absent rather than redundant.

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?

This is a browser automation tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain focus requirements, whether a prior snapshot is needed, what the result contains, or how observe/force interact with the action. The rich schema helps with parameters, but the description is too thin to fully prepare an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters in detail, including force, observe, session, and timeoutMs. The description only adds the key example, which duplicates the schema's key description. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Press a keyboard key,' with examples such as Enter, Tab, and Control+a. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like chrome_use_type or chrome_use_fill, which also involve keyboard input.

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 gives examples of keys but does not explain when to use this tool instead of chrome_use_type, chrome_use_fill, or chrome_use_click. It also omits prerequisites such as whether an element must be focused first. Usage is only implied by the tool name and examples.

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