Input Text

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

The description reveals behavioral traits beyond annotations: it notes that ASCII uses key injection while Unicode relies on clipboard paste (Android 10+), which implies platform limitations. However, it does not mention failure modes (e.g., if no input field is focused) or permission requirements.

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, direct sentence that conveys essential information efficiently. Every word adds value, with no filler or 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 (two parameters, no output schema) and adequate annotations, the description provides sufficient context for effective use. It explains the key behavioral distinction (ASCII vs. Unicode). A minor gap is not stating that the tool depends on an active focused input.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal additional value by linking the Unicode limitation to the method parameter, but most parameter semantics are clear from the schema.

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 into focused input') and specifies two mechanisms (ASCII key injection, Unicode clipboard paste) for distinct use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_keyevent or adb_tap_text.

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 implies the tool is for typing text into a focused input, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adb_tap_text for tapping on text, adb_keyevent for key presses). No exclusion criteria or context triggers are provided.

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