dosbox_send_keys

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

Discloses rich behavior beyond the annotations: the buffered injection mechanism, no host keystrokes, paced delivery, ring capacity, and clean failure on a full ring. These facts are not visible in readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint and directly improve an agent's ability to use the tool safely.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: mechanism, key vocabulary, and pacing/capacity constraints. The most important fact is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with an output schema, annotations, and only three parameters, the description covers the essential behaviors, constraints, key-format rules, and failure semantics. The agent has enough context to call it correctly without additional lookup.

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?

Adds meaning the schema leaves out: each array item is a single character or a named key, it enumerates valid key names, and it explains the purpose of pace_seconds. The optional pid is not explained, but since it is nullable and has a default it does not block correct use.

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?

Leads with a precise action: 'Type into the guest' by appending to its BIOS ring buffer. It also distinguishes itself from mouse/focus-dependent input tools by saying 'no window focus, no host keystrokes'.

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 clear operational guidance: send small batches, respect pacing, and interpret a full ring as the game waiting on the mouse rather than the keyboard. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like dosbox_click or dosbox_hold_buttons, so the guidance is strong but not fully exclusionary.

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