ui_send_system_event

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

The description does not disclose side effects or behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotation (openWorldHint: false). It does not indicate if the event is sent synchronously, whether it requires specific UI state, or what the impact is on the UI backend.

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 detail. It is appropriately front-loaded but does not earn its place due to insufficient information.

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 tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description should provide enough context for correct usage. However, it fails to specify what events are supported, how the mode parameter works, or the result of sending an event, making it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the two parameters. 'event' and 'mode' are not explained; possible values or semantics are missing, leaving the agent to guess.

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 specifies 'send a system event' which is a clear action, but 'supported system event' is vague and does not differentiate from many other UI interaction sibling tools. It lacks specificity about what constitutes a system event.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ui_send_keys or ui_invoke. There is no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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