browser_press

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the primary behavior—pressing a key—and hints at real-world effects like form submission, but it does not mention focus requirements, whether the tool waits for resulting page changes, or exact modifier notation beyond an example. This is 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 two short sentences with no filler: the action verb and examples come first, followed by a targeted use-case sentence. Every word contributes to helping an agent decide when and how to call the tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what happens, gives parameter examples, and provides practical use cases. It could mention focus prerequisites or return behavior, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 input schema provides only a bare string type with no description, so the tool description must compensate. It adds meaningful value by listing concrete values like Enter, Escape, Tab, ArrowDown, and Control+a, helping an agent construct a valid key argument. It does not enumerate all possible keys, but the examples strongly imply the expected format.

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 and resource ('Press a keyboard key'), gives concrete examples, and clearly differentiates this keyboard action from sibling mouse-oriented tools like browser_click. The inclusion of modifiers such as Control+a further pins down exactly what the tool does.

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 phrase 'Useful for submitting forms or closing dialogs' provides clear context for when an agent should use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple one-parameter action.

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