Clears the currently focused text field in a Uitree Portal APK via uitree-local, optionally verifying the screen tree confirms the change.
Clears the currently focused text field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verify | No | 复查屏幕树确认变更生效 (default true). | |
| verify_poll_ms | No | 轮询树的时间间隔毫秒 (default 300). | |
| verify_timeout_ms | No | 等待变更生效的超时毫秒 (default 3000). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether existing content is destroyed irreversibly, what happens if no field is focused, or that the verify parameters trigger screen-tree polling, which is meaningful behavior for a mutation 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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but for a mutation tool with three parameters it is arguably too thin to be considered well-structured rather than merely brief.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and three verification parameters, the description should explain mutation semantics, failure behavior, and the verification flow. It covers none of these, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.
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 100%, so the three verify-related parameters are already documented in the schema (including defaults). The description adds nothing about them, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: clearing the currently focused text field. It is clearly distinct from the text-entry siblings like keyboard_input and keyboard_key, though it never explicitly names them as alternatives.
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 on when to use this versus keyboard_input or keyboard_key, and no stated prerequisite such as how the target field becomes focused. The phrase 'currently focused' hints at a precondition but leaves the agent to infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.