chord

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate destructive/open-world), the description discloses that the tool returns immediately and that completion must be checked via browser_status. This adds crucial async-behavior context. There is no contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

Three short, meaningful sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, then the return behavior, then the completion-check instruction. No word is wasted.

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 a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the timing, and the follow-up channel (browser_status). It omits only a deeper discussion of side-effects, but the annotations already indicate destructiveness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter explanation. It clearly links 'keys' to the overlapping chord elements and 'durationMs' to how long they are held before release, which is sufficient for correct use.

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 action: starting a chord with overlapping keys and releasing them after a duration. It names the resource (keys) and behavior (overlapping, auto-release), which differentiates it from siblings like key_down/key_up or sequence_start.

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 implies when to use: when you need overlapping key presses for a duration. However, it does not explicitly contrast with key_down, key_up, sequence_start, or mention situations where this tool would be inappropriate. Usage is evident but not explicitly enumerated.

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