keyboard_key

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

The description discloses a significant behavioral trait not visible in annotations: the tool leaves the VM locked and requires a subsequent vm_unlock call. This goes beyond the schema and annotations and helps the agent plan follow-up actions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and examples, with the lock caveat placed second. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of schema content.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key parameters, example values, action types, and the critical lock-release requirement. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens on invalid keys, but it is adequate for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining the key parameter with common examples and mapping the action enum to press, hold, and release. The vm_name parameter is already described in the schema, so the combination is reasonably informative.

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 the tool presses, holds, or releases a named keyboard key, with concrete examples (ENTER, CTRL, LEFT, F1). It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like qemu_keyboard_key or keyboard_hotkey.

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 provides clear workflow context: the VM remains locked by the session after using this tool and vm_unlock must be called when finished. This tells the agent how to sequence the operation, though it does not mention when to prefer keyboard_type, keyboard_hotkey, or other alternatives.

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