glass_key

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, it discloses important runtime behavior: unknown tokens are rejected with a named error, nothing is half-pressed, and modifiers are released on completion. It also explains case-insensitivity and aliases for super, which materially affect how the agent should construct calls.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: syntax, accepted values, error behavior, release semantics, and routing to alternatives. It is front-loaded with examples before grammar details, making it easy to scan.

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 single-parameter keyboard tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: chord grammar, modifier aliases, key categories, error handling, and alternative tools. There is no critical missing 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?

Although the schema provides a simple example, the description substantially expands the meaning of the `chord` parameter: last token is the key, earlier tokens are modifiers, accepted modifier names, key categories, and printable ASCII support. This adds real semantic value beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 begins with an explicit verb and resource: 'Press a key chord', followed by concrete examples. It clearly differentiates from glass_type ('for literal text') and glass_do ('for batching'), so an agent can distinguish the tool from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit guidance: use for shortcuts and named keys, glass_type for literal text, and glass_do when batching multiple actions or waits. It also specifies exact chord syntax and accepted modifier forms, leaving little to inference.

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