type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that special characters are escaped, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it fails to disclose that the action sends keystrokes to the foreground window, may require a focused window, or that it mutates system state. This is a significant gap for a UI automation tool.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Type text') and the method, followed by a key behavior. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. It does not mention the prerequisite of a focused window, potential errors (e.g., no window focused), or any output/return behavior. The agent is left without critical context to invoke it reliably, especially since there is no output schema or annotations to fill the gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'special characters escaped' adds meaning to the 'text' parameter, indicating that special characters are handled automatically. However, it does not explain format, length limits, or provide examples. It adds some value but not enough to fully clarify the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('text') with the method ('through SendKeys') and a key behavior ('special characters escaped'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like press_key (single key) and move_mouse/click_mouse, which the agent can infer as alternatives without ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it types into the focused window or requires a prior focus_window call, nor does it contrast with press_key for single keys. Usage context is implied by the tool name and siblings but not stated, leaving the agent to infer.

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