keyboard_hotkey

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 states the action and key syntax but does not mention whether the hotkey is sent globally, whether it can trigger system-level shortcuts, whether it blocks or waits, or what happens if the combination is invalid. The examples help, but significant behavioral context is missing.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes value. The examples are highly practical and immediately clarify the expected input format without unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the input format and likely behavior. It is not fully complete—missing details about global/system-level behavior and error cases—but the low complexity and strong examples make it adequately usable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'keys' parameter and its '+' separator format. The description adds useful examples like 'cmd+c' and 'ctrl+cmd+f', reinforcing key naming conventions, but it largely repeats the schema's meaning rather than adding new semantic depth.

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 operation: 'Press a keyboard shortcut / hotkey combination.' It is specific about the resource (hotkey combination) and includes concrete examples that convey intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool keyboard_press, which could overlap in an agent's understanding.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like keyboard_press or keyboard_type. The examples imply it is for hotkey combinations, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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