press_keyboard_keys

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), covering the side-effect profile. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the obvious action of pressing keys, but it also does not contradict annotations, so a baseline score of 3 is reasonable.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no redundant or unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple tool, the description is minimal but incomplete: it lacks key format syntax, example inputs, and any note about the difference from type_keyboard. With no output schema and only one parameter, the tool should still explain how to represent multiple keys or shortcuts, which it does not.

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 has one string parameter 'keys' with 0% description coverage. The description says 'one or more keyboard keys or shortcuts' but does not specify the expected format (e.g., 'ctrl+c' vs. 'ctrl,c' or space-separated). This is a significant gap that the description does not compensate for.

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 states a clear action ('Press') on a specific resource ('keyboard keys or shortcuts'), which is understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool type_keyboard, but the phrase 'keys or shortcuts' indicates key combinations rather than text entry, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly the sibling type_keyboard or other input-related tools. It does not provide any context for when key pressing is appropriate or when a different tool should be chosen, so this dimension lacks necessary direction.

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