keyboard_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly does: it discloses the full side-effect sequence (opens keyboard, optionally fills value, waits, screenshots, then closes the keyboard by default and re-checks viewport recovery). That is real behavioral context an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether focus/tap is required to open the keyboard or what happens on failure/timeout.

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?

Content is front-loaded — what it does, what it reports, then what it returns and how it cleans up. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; only the run-on construction around the return/cleanup step costs it a point.

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 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the sequence, the return artifacts (report plus screenshot) and the default cleanup. What is missing is the meaning of 'index', error/timeout behavior, and the report's shape — enough to keep it from a 5.

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 86%, so the schema already documents hide, page, wait, value, selector and settle_s; the description only reinforces 'value' (fills the field to trigger suggestions) and 'selector' (the field). The 'index' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description, leaving a real gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource (open the keyboard on a field) and a specific outcome (report occlusion of the field, fixed bars, suggestion popups). It is clearly not a plain show/hide/state tool, distinguishing it from siblings keyboard_show, keyboard_hide and keyboard_state, which only manipulate or read keyboard state without an occlusion report.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of 'suggestion popups' and 'optionally puts a value in the field first, to bring up suggestions' tells the agent this is the tool for keyboard-occlusion audits, and the 'hide' behavior hints at the after-state check. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not against keyboard_state / keyboard_show / screenshot, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a page must be loaded) are stated.

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