keys

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral insight, but it provides only the action 'Press a key combination' and no extra information about side effects, focus requirements, key-form limitations, or error behavior. It is a thin translation of the tool's name.

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 with no filler. It immediately states the purpose, then provides illustrative examples, earning its place and keeping the text attention-efficient.

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 tool with one required and two optional parameters, the core action is stated enough, but it lacks guidance on when to choose this over the many sibling input tools (press, type, click). The existence of the 'session' and 'lease' parameters implies multi-session complexity that the description doesn't explain. It's adequate but leaves gaps.

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 description adds concrete key-string syntax examples ('Control+A', 'Enter') that are more detailed than the schema's terse 'Key combo'. This helps the agent pass valid values for 'keys', though it does not clarify the optional 'lease' or 'session' beyond their schema descriptions.

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 verb 'press' and the resource 'key combination', with substantive examples ('Control+a', 'Enter'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'press' or 'type', so it lacks a clear distinguishing statement but remains unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or how to route between similar tools. The description only explains the action without any 'when' / 'when-not' context, leaving the agent without decision-support.

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