Send key to QEMU VM

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the usage hint, missing opportunities to explain transient effects or side effects like sending keys to a VM console.

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 with parenthetical examples. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 covers the core purpose adequately. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or whether the action is synchronous. Given no output schema and limited parameter documentation, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description provides examples for the 'key' parameter ('ctrl-alt-delete', 'ret', 'a'), adding meaning. However, it does not explain 'node' or 'vmid' at all, leaving gaps for those required parameters.

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 the verb ('send'), resource ('key combination to a QEMU VM'), and provides concrete examples ('unlocking screens, sending Ctrl+Alt+Del'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_monitor or vm_agent_exec.

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 gives explicit use cases ('unlocking screens, sending Ctrl+Alt+Del'), but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusion criteria are absent.

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