key_press

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 clarifies that this is for keys/shortcuts and not text, but does not disclose other behaviors like synchronous execution, repeat semantics, or behavior on invalid chords. It's adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence with examples and a pointer to an alternative. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary use case and provides a clear alternative. The main gap is the lack of detail on 'repeat' behavior, but the overall tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful format examples for the 'chord' parameter (e.g., 'cmd+s', 'F5'), but does not explain the 'repeat' parameter at all. The schema gives defaults and bounds, but the agent lacks guidance on what 'repeat' actually does.

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 'Press a key or shortcut chord' with specific examples like 'Return', 'cmd+s', and 'F5'. It distinguishes from sibling keyboard_type by explicitly noting that tool is for regular text, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use keyboard_type for regular text,' which tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative. It also implies key_press is for keys and shortcuts, providing clear usage context.

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