send_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It adds useful behavioral details: the default timeout behavior (0 or None becomes 7 seconds) and the exception raised when the element isn't found. This goes beyond a basic action statement and sets clear expectations for failure and waiting.

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 concise: the primary behavior is stated in the first sentence, followed by two short sentences covering timeout and error behavior. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 keystroke tool, the description covers the main behavioral expectations: it does not clear the element, it waits with a default timeout, and it raises an exception when the element is missing. With an output schema present and straightforward parameters, this is sufficiently complete, though explicit guidance on choosing between send_keys and type_text would improve clarity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful timeout semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the selector or text formats, leaving those to be inferred from their names and the phrase 'element' and 'keystrokes'. Partial compensation only.

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: 'Send keystrokes to an element' and highlights the key differentiator 'without clearing it first'. This distinguishes it from related input tools like clear_input and type_text, and gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool does.

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 phrase 'without clearing it first' implicitly signals this tool is for scenarios where existing element content should be preserved, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over type_text, set_value, or other sibling input tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage guidance remains implied rather than direct.

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