press_key

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral details: it explains the alias normalization to xdotool keysym, states that unrecognized key names cause explicit errors rather than silent failures, and notes that the returned active window title depends on focus. This is comprehensive for a single-purpose tool.

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 information-dense but not bloated—each sentence adds value (purpose, format, modifiers, aliases, errors, return value). It is structured logically, though slightly long; a tighter phrasing could earn a 5.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which the description complements by mentioning the active window title), the description is complete. It covers invocation, input format, edge cases, and return behavior—nothing essential is missing.

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 0% (the combo parameter has no schema description), but the description provides exhaustive guidance: exact syntax examples, accepted modifier keys, alias behavior, and error handling. It fully compensates for the missing schema information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '发送快捷键' (send hotkey) and '全局键盘注入' (global keyboard injection), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like type_text (text input) and click (mouse action). The format examples further clarify the exact operation.

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 purpose is immediately evident—sending key combinations—and the global scope is explicit. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for typing text use type_text), though the distinction is strongly implied by the sibling names and the term 'keyboard injection'.

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