Desktop: Shortcut

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds value by noting the AHK Send syntax and the desktop_permission requirement. It does not explain why the operation is destructive (e.g. that shortcuts can trigger destructive app actions) or what happens on success, so the additional behavioral context is partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its syntax, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers action, syntax dialect, and the permission prerequisite. It is nearly complete, though it does not indicate what the caller should expect after the shortcut fires.

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 100% and the 'keys' property is fully documented in AHK v2 notation with examples, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's friendly examples ('Ctrl+C') are less precise than the schema's AHK form and add little beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (keyboard shortcut) with concrete examples, which cleanly separates it from siblings like desktop_type, desktop_click, and desktop_ahk. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 names a real precondition ('Requires desktop_permission in the active mission step'), which is useful usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over desktop_type, desktop_ahk, or desktop_click, so usage is only implied.

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