press_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. It reveals that the tool simulates key presses and lists supported keys/modifiers, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., triggering shortcuts that could be destructive), required permissions, or whether the input is directed to the active application. This is basic transparency but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise with no filler or redundancy, earning a top score.

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 simple input tool, the description is minimally viable given the rich schema. However, it omits any mention of return behavior, side effects, or when to use this instead of sibling tools. The lack of annotations means the description should compensate, but it does not fully do so, leaving it adequate but incomplete.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's list of keys (enter, tab, space, escape, backspace) adds some examples but is actually less comprehensive than the schema's key description, which also includes 'c' and 'v'. Modifiers are already enumerated in the schema's enum, so the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 simulates key presses with a specific list of keys and modifiers, using the verb 'Simulates' and the resource 'key'. It is distinct from sibling tools like type_text, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them, so it misses the highest score.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where it is preferred over type_text or other input tools. Usage is merely implied by the action description.

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