key_press

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the format of keys but does not explain potential side effects such as key presses affecting the focused window, whether the tool waits for the key release, or if there are any restrictions on which keys can be used. The output schema exists but the description does not clarify what the tool returns or if it can fail (e.g., invalid key combo). This is insufficient for a tool that sends system-level key events.

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 with no waste, front-loading the core function and examples. It is concise and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 actual complexity—a system-level key input with potential side effects—the description is minimal. It does not address error handling, target behavior, or interaction with the focus system. While the output schema exists, the description does not mention return values or failure modes. For a tool that could disrupt user workflows if misused, more detail is needed.

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% as neither 'keys' nor 'target' have descriptions. The description provides some semantics for 'keys' by giving examples like 'ctrl+c' and 'Return', which helps understand the expected format. However, 'target' is left unexplained, and the description does not clarify whether it is for specifying a window or application to receive the key press, leaving a gap for this parameter.

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 purpose: pressing keyboard shortcuts or single keys, with examples of both. It identifies the specific action (press) and resource (keyboard input), making it distinguishable from siblings like mouse_click or type_text, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 for keyboard shortcuts, but provides no guidance on when to use it versus type_text for text entry or paste_text for pasting. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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