text_type

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 adds useful constraints like 'safe printable ASCII' and the warning against secrets, but it does not disclose details such as whether the tool overwrites existing content, how non-ASCII characters are handled, or any logging implications. For a simple tool this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Type' and the resource. Every word earns its place, including the security warning. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it specifies the target ('focused field'), the input type ('safe printable ASCII'), and the usage caveat (secrets). It could potentially mention prerequisites like ensuring focus, but 'focused field' already implies that requirement, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by specifying that the 'text' parameter should contain 'safe printable ASCII test text'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw string type and length constraints. It does not mention the 1024 max length, but that is already present in the schema, so the description adds valuable semantic context without needing to repeat schema details.

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 'Type safe printable ASCII test text into the focused field', specifying the action (type), the resource (focused field), and the input scope (safe printable ASCII). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like key_press and ui_tap by emphasizing text input rather than individual keys or taps.

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 clear context: use it to type text into a focused field, with an explicit exclusion 'never use for secrets'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., key_press for individual keys) or describe scenarios where other tools would be preferable, so it falls short of a full 5.

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