nanokvm_send_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that modifiers are 'Hold' flags, implying they are pressed alongside the key, and enumerates valid key values. It does not disclose potential side effects or timing, but for a simple key press operation, this is adequate. The behavior is transparent enough for an agent to expect a press with optional held modifiers.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses a clean bulleted list to categorize key types and a separate line for each modifier, making it scannable and easy to parse. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters, one required, and no annotations, the description fully covers the valid inputs and modifier semantics. It doesn't explain return values, but an output schema exists, so that information is available structurally. The description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, including edge cases like single-character keys and modifier combinations.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which provides only property names and types with zero descriptions. It fully defines valid input values for 'key' (named keys, function keys, arrow keys, navigation, single characters) and clarifies the boolean modifier parameters as 'Hold' actions. This is critical for correct parameter usage and far exceeds a baseline schema-only understanding.

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: 'Send a single key press to the target machine.' It specifies the exact action (send), the resource (key press to target machine), and correctly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_text (for text input) and mouse-related tools (tap/click/move). No ambiguity exists about its core purpose.

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 clear context that this tool sends a single key press, with a comprehensive enumeration of supported key categories (named keys, function keys, arrow keys, navigation, single characters). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the scope is clear from the phrasing 'single key press' and the detailed key list, which guides an agent to choose this tool for individual key events rather than text strings or mouse actions.

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