Press Key

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

Description details behavior: pressing keys, holding, modifiers, delay. It mentions return value. No contradiction with annotations (openWorldHint). Could note potential side effects (e.g., page changes) but sufficient for a key-press tool.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections and examples. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and key usage guidance.

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?

All parameters covered, usage explained, return value mentioned. No gaps given the tool's complexity. Output schema exists but description still states return type.

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 0%, but description fully explains each parameter: key with examples, modifiers as array of modifier keys, hold_ms for long-press, delay_after_ms. Adds meaning beyond schema defaults and types.

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 it presses a single key or key chord. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'gv_fill_input' by noting what it can do that fill_input cannot, providing specific examples.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for things gv_fill_input can't do' and gives concrete examples like submitting a form with Enter, tabbing, dismissing a modal with Escape, etc., providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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