type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'type text using keyboard', which implies a mutation, but lacks details on typing speed, whether it simulates human typing, handles special keys, or what happens if no element is focused. The tool's behavioral traits (e.g., non-destructive, requires focus) are not explicitly described.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 2 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides the core action. However, it lacks context on error scenarios (e.g., unfocused input) and return value. For a simple tool, it is complete enough for basic use but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'text' and 'submitKey' are already defined). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 resource ('keyboard into a previously focused input'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'fill' (which targets a specific element) and 'press_key' (single key press), though it does not explicitly differentiate them. The phrase 'previously focused input' provides context that the agent must have already focused an element.

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 implies that the input must be focused beforehand, but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., focusing an element via 'click' or 'focus' tool) or scenarios where 'fill' or 'press_key' would be more appropriate. Missing when-not-to-use instructions.

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