press_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'hardware/software key' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires device connectivity, what happens if the key is invalid, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, or potential side effects (e.g., turning device on/off with power key). The description is too minimal for a tool that likely interacts with external systems.

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?

Extremely concise at 4 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted 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 incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and likely complex behavior (interacting with devices). It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or operational context (e.g., ADB-based), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand proper use.

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%, with clear enum values for 'key' and optionality for 'device_id'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain key types (e.g., 'back' for navigation, 'volume_up' for audio) or device_id usage. Baseline is 3 since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 'Press a hardware/software key' states the action (press) and target (key), but is vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what system or interface these keys operate on (e.g., Android device via ADB), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'tap' or 'type_text' which involve different input mechanisms.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'press_key' versus 'tap' (for screen coordinates) or 'type_text' (for text input), or mention prerequisites like needing a connected device. The description provides only basic function without context.

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