vnc_key_press

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not explain whether key press/release is simulated, how modifiers are handled, whether focus is required, or what observable effect the key press has.

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?

'Press a key or key combination' is a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. It is concise, though it is arguably too sparse to fully carry the tool's behavioral and usage context.

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, the schema richly documents the key syntax and examples, and no output schema is required. However, the description omits any behavioral context and does not differentiate when to use this tool over sibling input tools, so it is only minimally viable.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the only parameter with concrete examples. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a concrete action ('Press') and a scoped resource ('a key or key combination'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It is naturally distinguishable from siblings like vnc_click and vnc_type_text, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vnc_type_text or vnc_click. The schema examples imply intended syntax, but the description itself offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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