Type Text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by specifying the target as 'focused element in the selected tab,' implying the element must be focused beforehand. However, it does not disclose whether the text replaces existing content, appends, or has other side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extra words. It is front-loaded with the action and delivers the key information efficiently.

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 action tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core context: what is inserted, where it is inserted, and the condition (focused element). It lacks details about return values or error cases, but these are less critical given the low complexity. The description is sufficient for basic use but could mention prerequisites more explicitly.

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 schema has only one required parameter 'text' with no description, resulting in 0% schema description coverage. Although the description does not explicitly explain the parameter, the tool's name ('type_text') and the parameter name make its meaning obvious. The description provides no additional details about formatting, valid values, or constraints, but the parameter is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 function: 'Insert text into the focused element in the selected tab.' It uses a specific verb ('insert') and resource ('text') and specifies the location (focused element in selected tab), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other actions like clicking, scrolling, or pressing keys.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to focus the element first) or clarify differences from press_key or click. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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