qt_key_combo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that input is delivered as a real key press/release pair with modifier state set, and importantly warns that shortcuts can trigger real app actions like closing windows or saving—critical risk information. This goes beyond the basic purpose.

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 three efficient sentences: purpose, format, and behavioral nuance. No fluff or redundant information, and the most important details are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, key format, target element semantics, and real-action consequences. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only minor gap is the undefined session_id, but overall the tool context is sufficiently complete.

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 property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description compensates by detailing the 'keys' format and the special meaning of element_id 0 for focus targeting. However, session_id is not explained, leaving a partial gap in parameter semantics.

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 tool's action: 'Send a keyboard shortcut to an element', with concrete examples like 'Ctrl+C'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (e.g., qt_keyboard_input) are visually distinguished by this shortcut-specific focus.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool, including the key format (modifiers joined with '+') and that element_id 0 targets the focused widget. It implies this is for shortcuts rather than general text input, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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