input_press

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 explains the basic action but does not mention keycode validity, whether a full press-and-release sequence is simulated, device-connection prerequisites, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for an unannotated mutating input tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence. The second sentence is somewhat redundant because it restates the required parameter, but the overall structure is efficient 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate for a basic invocation. However, it lacks sibling differentiation, especially from input_keyevent, and does not specify acceptable keycode values. These gaps make the description only minimally complete rather than fully contextual.

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 0% because the schema only provides the parameter name and integer type. The description adds the meaning that keycode is the keycode of the key to press, which is helpful but mostly restates the parameter name. It does not provide valid Android keycode examples or constraints, leaving an agent to rely on external knowledge.

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 simulates a key press event with a given keycode on a connected Android device, so the verb, resource, and target are identifiable. However, it does not distinguish input_press from the closely related sibling input_keyevent, so it cannot earn the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool instead of input_keyevent, input_tap, or input_text. The description only states that the keycode parameter is required, which is already in the schema, and offers no exclusions or alternative-routing context.

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