Press key / key combination

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists example key values and sequence ordering; it does not state that input goes to the active/focused window, whether focus is required, how invalid keys are handled, or what side effects combinations like ctrl+alt+delete may cause.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then gives compact examples and the ordering behavior. It is appropriately sized and contains no redundant explanation.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents its parameters, but with no annotations or output schema the description should say more about focus/active-window behavior and when to prefer type_text. It is adequate to identify the operation but has clear gaps for correct invocation in context.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful meaning by giving concrete key-name and key-combination syntax examples and clarifying that multiple keys can be passed in order, which is not fully conveyed by the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: pressing keys, with concrete examples including combinations and sequences. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool type_text, which is the main alternative for keyboard input.

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 examples of valid keys but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus type_text or other input tools. There are no when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives named, leaving selection between siblings to inference.

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