type_text

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write action, and the description adds the crucial behavioral trait that keystrokes go to whatever is in front, plus that press_return submits the line. It doesn't say whether the tool returns any confirmation or what happens if the target app has no focused input, but the core interaction model is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then a compact args list — every element earns its place. Minor redundancy between 'pass app (or focus it first)' in the body and the app arg entry keeps it from being perfectly tight.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema input tool, the description covers purpose, routing to a sibling, focus behavior, and all parameters. It stops short of describing failure modes or whether any confirmation is returned, which is the only notable 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 carries the full documentation load, and it does explain all three parameters meaningfully: text as literal text, press_return as post-typing Return/submit, and app as the app to bring forward ('Strongly recommended'). A bit more on app formatting (exact names) would earn a 5, but the semantics are clear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Type text into an app') and immediately scopes the purpose with concrete use cases (document, form, chat box). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the run_shell sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context (writing into a document, form, or chat box) and an explicit when-not: 'Don't use this to run shell commands; use run_shell, which returns output.' It also states the focus prerequisite for targeting a particular app.

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