vroid_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral nuance: Escape does not close the hamburger menu, and that key presses go to the focused widget. This is sufficient for a key-press tool, though it doesn't describe potential side effects or focus requirements beyond what's implied.

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 concise and well-structured: the primary objective is stated first, followed by a list of useful combos and a caveat. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no fluff. The layout is easy to scan.

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 key-press tool, the description covers what keys to press, gives practical examples, and highlights a relevant gotcha. It doesn't mention return values, but the output schema likely indicates success/failure, and for this tool it's not critical. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 already describes both parameters (combo and times) with examples and aliases, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete, useful key combinations (e.g., 'Return confirms a value box', 'ctrl+s saves'), which goes beyond the schema's generic format explanation and clarifies likely inputs.

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 tool's function: 'Press a key combination in the focused VRoid widget.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like vroid_click and vroid_type by focusing on key combinations. The context of 'focused widget' adds clarity.

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?

It provides practical guidance by listing useful key combinations (Return, ctrl+s, ctrl+z, etc.) and their effects, which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. It also gives a specific caution about Escape not closing the hamburger menu. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the examples imply its use for shortcuts and confirmations.

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