keyboard_keycode

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals a meaningful behavioral trait: the session keeps the VM locked and requires a subsequent vm_unlock call. This is exactly the kind of side-effect/state information an agent needs. It doesn't cover invalid-parameter behavior or effects of conflicting virtual_key/scan_code values, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose first and the state warning second. Every clause earns its place.

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 five-parameter input tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description leaves too much to inference: mutability/exclusivity of virtual_key and scan_code, meaning of extended, and how action values map to event behavior. The lock warning is helpful but not sufficient.

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 20%, and the description adds little parameter-level detail. It mentions virtual-key or scan-code, which maps to virtual_key/scan_code, but leaves action, extended, and the relationship between virtual_key and scan_code unexplained.

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 identifies a specific action ('Send...input event') and resource ('Win32 virtual-key or scan-code'), making the tool's function clear. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like keyboard_key or qemu_keyboard_key, but 'low-level Win32' sets it apart from higher-level keyboard inputs.

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?

It gives operational context: the VM stays locked by this session and vm_unlock must be called when done, which tells the agent when to pair this tool with vm_unlock. However, it gives no explicit guidance on choosing this over sibling keyboard_key/keyboard_hotkey/input_batch, or when low-level keycodes are required.

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