keyboard_press

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the core action ('press a key') and that modifiers are optional, and it defines accepted values. However, it does not disclose whether the press is a discrete tap versus a hold, how modifiers are applied/released, or any focus/permission requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two purposeful sentences with the core action first, followed by compact lists of keys and modifiers. No filler, no repetition of schema internals beyond what is useful; lists are structured for easy scanning.

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 two-parameter keyboard tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers key and modifier syntax sufficiently. The main missing context is behavioral ('tap' semantics) and alternative routing to keyboard_type/keyboard_hotkey, which are more usage-guideline than completeness issues.

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?

Input schema already provides 100% coverage with examples and a default for modifiers, so baseline is 3. The description adds the full allowed key set, key aliases, and modifier names, going beyond the schema's terse examples. It still leaves 'symbols' unspecified, but overall it materially enriches 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?

States the action explicitly ('Press a key with optional modifier keys') and enumerates the key and modifier space, so an agent knows exactly what resource/action is involved. It does not explicitly contrast with keyboard_type or keyboard_hotkey, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool instead of keyboard_type, keyboard_hotkey, or other input siblings. The context signals show sibling keyboard tools, but the description never mentions them nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the action verb.

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