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 of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool verifies and focuses the Sky process before pressing, which is useful behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the key isn't allowlisted, what 'verifying and focusing' entails in failure terms, or side effects like whether focus is retained after pressing.

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, information-dense sentence that conveys the action, scope, and preconditions. Zero wasted words. The key behavioral facts (game context, verification, focusing) are all packed efficiently.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, so the description carries heavy burden. It explains the tool's core behavior well but leaves the backend enum, duration range, and valid key formats unexplained. An output schema exists which helps, but with zero param documentation elsewhere, more detail on allowed key values would materially improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. It names the game key concept but doesn't explain valid key string formats, what the backend enum values mean, or what duration_ms controls. The description's mention of the game provides some context for the key parameter but nothing for backend or duration_ms beyond what defaults suggest.

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 the verb (press) and resource (one allowlisted game key) plus adds the important qualifier 'after verifying and focusing the Sky process.' This distinguishes it from text entry tools like type_text/send_chat. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from screenshot/read_screen siblings, though those are clearly different. The context about 'allowlisted' and 'Sky process' adds meaningful specificity.

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 says the tool presses keys only within the Sky game context, implying it should not be used for general typing (which belongs to type_text). 'Allowlisted' implies only certain keys are accepted. However, there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to alternative tools like type_text or send_chat for text entry tasks.

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