Browser Keyboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that keys go to the currently focused element unless selector is provided, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention whether this works across modes (headless/connect/extension), what happens if the element isn't focusable, or any timing/waiting behavior after the keypress.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose, use cases, and selector behavior. Front-loaded with the core action and key examples. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, common use cases, and selector behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning mode implications or error handling, but for a keyboard press tool it covers the essential context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 all parameters including key, mode, selector, modifiers, and sessionId. The description mentions modifiers (Ctrl/Shift/Alt) and selector behavior, but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb (press) and resource (keyboard keys), then enumerates concrete scenarios like submitting forms, navigating fields, closing modals, and autocomplete menus. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like browser_type (text input) and browser_click (mouse actions) through its keyboard-focused scope.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance with examples (Enter to submit, Tab to navigate, Escape to close, Ctrl+A to select). It also clarifies behavior when selector is provided vs. omitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling browser_type or browser_form_fill, which might overlap for text entry scenarios.

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