browser_press

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds useful context by stating that it returns the new visual state and can focus on an element, going beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects like navigation or data deletion, which the destructive hint implies.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Press one supported non-text keyboard key') and includes essential modifiers compactly. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the main behavior (key press, optional element focus, return of visual state). Since there is no output schema, explicitly stating the returned visual state is helpful. Minor gaps remain (e.g., wait_ms, error cases), but annotations supply safety context and the schema supplies defaults.

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 clarifies that 'key' refers to non-text keyboard keys and that element_id references a current element, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare property names. However, wait_ms is not mentioned, and with schema description coverage at 0%, the enumeration of key values is the only schema-based help. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Press') and resource ('one supported non-text keyboard key'), and further clarifies scope with 'optionally focused on a current element reference' and 'return the new visual state.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_type (text input) and browser_click (mouse click).

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 implies usage for non-text keyboard keys, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over browser_type or browser_click, nor does it provide exclusions or mention specific scenarios like form submission or navigation. There is no direct alternative guidance.

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