input_sendKeys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions supported modifiers and provides examples, but it does not disclose prerequisites such as whether the MOHO window must be focused, nor what happens if the shortcut is invalid or unhandled. This leaves important behavioral gaps.

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 one sentence plus a list of examples. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. The examples are directly relevant and aid understanding without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and examples. However, it omits critical operational context such as whether the window must be active/focused, how errors are reported, or if there is any return value. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent needing to execute reliably.

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 input schema already describes the 'keys' parameter with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds examples of shortcut-to-action mappings (e.g., ctrl+z = undo), which is useful context but primarily reinforces usage rather than adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Send a keyboard shortcut to the MOHO window', which is a specific verb and resource. It also provides examples that distinguish this tool from sibling mouse input tools (input_mouseClick, input_mouseDrag), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 examples give concrete use cases (undo, redo, play/pause, save), implying when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like mouse clicks or state when not to use it. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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