keyboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. It implies input injection into whatever window has focus, but does not disclose permission/accessibility requirements, key-name syntax, timing or waiting behavior, or whether text is typed character-by-character. The only real disclosure is the 'focused app' targeting, which is useful but thin for a write-action 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?

A single well-formed sentence with zero filler, and the three operating modes are front-loaded. It is efficient but unstructured — a short action-to-parameter mapping would have cost little and added much.

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?

Four parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema means the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it supplies almost none. An agent cannot tell from this alone how to format keys, what 'device' means, or what happens on failure.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It only obliquely covers text (type) and keys (press/hotkey); the 'device' parameter is completely unexplained, and there is no guidance on accepted key names, chord syntax for arrays, or what device values are legal.

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?

Names a concrete verb set (type / press / send a sequence) and the target (the focused app), which maps cleanly onto the action enum values type/press/hotkey. It distinguishes itself from the mouse/click siblings implicitly by being the keyboard-input tool, but never states that contrast outright.

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?

No when-to-use guidance: nothing says which action to pick for a single character vs. a chord, when to prefer this over mouse/click, or what preconditions exist (focus, permissions). 'To the focused app' hints at a constraint but no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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