type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for focus but does not describe what happens if the field is not focused, how text is input (e.g., character-by-character, paste), or any error handling. This is minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary action. Every word serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 and the presence of an input schema, the description covers the core action and a key precondition. However, it lacks details on behavior in edge cases (e.g., unfocused field, special characters) and does not explain return values or udid defaults beyond what the schema provides.

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 description only indirectly references the 'text' parameter by stating 'Type text'. The 'udid' parameter is not mentioned at all. Since schema description coverage is 50% and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, it provides insufficient parameter context.

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 action ('Type text') and the target resource ('currently focused field'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like tap or swipe by specifying text input into a focused field.

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 a precondition ('Tap the field first to focus it'), which offers implicit guidance on when to use this tool in sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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