trigger_hotkey_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a hotkey is triggered, without mentioning side effects, possible errors (e.g., hotkey not found), required application state, or whether the action is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by an Args list. It avoids redundancy, front-loads the key action, and every sentence/line serves a purpose. The length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., error handling, return value) and explicit usage alternatives. It is adequate but leaves out details that would fully round out the context.

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 provides brief explanations for both parameters ('hotkey_name' and 'context_name'), adding meaning beyond the input schema which only lists titles. Although sparse, it clarifies that 'context_name' is optional and specifies the role of 'hotkey_name', compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Trigger a hotkey by its name.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'trigger_hotkey_by_key_sequence' by specifying the trigger method (name vs. key sequence). The pointer to 'get_hotkey_list' clarifies the source for valid names.

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 implicitly gives usage context by instructing the user to see 'get_hotkey_list' to obtain valid hotkey names. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'trigger_hotkey_by_key_sequence' or mention any exclusions. The indication is clear but not fully explicit.

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