kvm_key_hold

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

The description discloses key behavioral details: keys are held, it is platform-specific, it auto-releases after 25 seconds, and release can be triggered explicitly. It does not mention potential outcomes of repeated calls or errors, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and information-dense, with no wasted words. It conveys purpose, constraints, duration, and release mechanism in two sentences.

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 low-complexity tool, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, platform scope, duration control, and release path. Sibling tool names further clarify the surrounding workflow.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions, but the description clarifies that keys is a list of key names (e.g., MetaLeft+KeyR) and that hold_ms controls the hold duration. Units are implied by the parameter name and constraints, though not explicitly stated.

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 tool holds keys down, scopes it to GLKVM/PiKVM, and gives a concrete example. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like kvm_keystroke and kvm_key_release.

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 practical guidance on passing hold_ms or calling kvm_key_release, and notes the 25-second auto-release. It could be more explicit about when to prefer this over kvm_keystroke, but the example and release instruction give sufficient direction.

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