ui_key_sequence

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

Annotations only specify openWorldHint: false, which is non-standard and does not convey safety or behavioral traits. The description mentions 'report cleanup evidence' hinting at side effects but does not clarify whether the tool is destructive, requires permissions, or what cleanup involves. No additional behavioral context is given beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. While brevity is valued, the sentence could be front-loaded with more critical information and still be concise. It is not overly verbose, but its brevity sacrifices clarity.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or usage context beyond the basic action. The tool likely requires specific formats for modifiers/keys, but this is left ambiguous.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of any parameter meaning, format, or constraints. For example, what are 'modifiers' and 'keys' expected to look like? The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but fails to do so.

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 keys'), the resource ('keys'), and the specific context ('while holding modifiers'). It also adds a unique outcome ('report cleanup evidence'), which distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like ui_send_keys or ui_hold_modifiers.

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 usage when needing to send keys with modifiers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ui_send_keys, ui_hold_modifiers, or ui_send_keys_focused. No usage exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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