playwright__browser_press_key

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

The description is minimal and adds little beyond the annotations. Annotations already show destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, implying mutation, but the description does not explain what side effects occur (e.g., navigation, form submission, or triggering shortcuts). Without annotations, this would score lower, but the descriptions should supplement the annotations with context like "This can trigger browser keyboard shortcuts or activate form submission." The description merely restates the obvious.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is too terse and lacks structure. It does not front-load crucial details like supported key formats or behavioral notes. The sentence is earned, but it could be expanded slightly to improve completeness without becoming verbose.

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 destructiveHint=true annotation and the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what happens after the key press (e.g., does the browser navigate? Does a form submit?). With many sibling tools and only one parameter, the description is inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand when and how to use it safely.

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% for the single parameter 'key', and its description is comprehensive: 'Name of the key to press or a character to generate, such as `ArrowLeft` or `a`'. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 "Press a key on the keyboard" clearly identifies the verb (press) and resource (key on keyboard), but it does not distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like playwright__browser_type or playwright__browser_click. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about what types of keys or combinations are supported.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like playwright__browser_type (for typing text) or playwright__browser_click (for mouse actions). It does not explain if this tool is suitable for key combinations (e.g., Ctrl+C), special keys, or single character keys, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having a focused element. The explicit destructiveHint=true annotation suggests it may cause state changes, but the description does not elaborate.

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