key

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint: destructive chords require confirmed=true. However, it omits other behaviors such as how key strings are interpreted, what happens when confirmed=false, and whether modifiers must be specified in any particular order. This is a moderate level of disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the key usage constraint. Every word earns its place 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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for fully reliable invocation. It lacks critical details like acceptable key string formats, how modifiers combine, and behavior when confirmed is false. The safety note about destructive chords is valuable, but the tool still has major unexplained surface area.

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 value by defining the default for direction ('press') and explaining the confirmed flag's necessity for destructive chords. However, it does not clarify the format or expected values for the 'key' parameter, which is the primary input, leaving a significant gap.

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 states that the tool sends a 'Key event to the focused app', clearly indicating it simulates keyboard input. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mouse_move and type_text by focusing on key events, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this should be used for key combinations/shortcuts as opposed to type_text for normal text input. The only instruction is about direction and confirmed for destructive chords, which is parameter-level guidance, not usage context.

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