Type Text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that input goes to the focused window and that xdotool/wtype backs it, but says nothing about the fact that keystrokes go to whatever has focus (risk of unintended input), whether text is appended or replaces selection, or what side effects the typing may trigger in the target app.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the core action comes first and the precondition second. Nothing is wasted, though nothing is expanded either.

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?

Relative to a two-parameter, single-purpose tool with an output schema, the description states the action, the mechanism, and the focus precondition. The main missing piece an agent would care about — the delay_ms parameter — is a parameter-level gap rather than a missing behavioral framing.

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 must explain both parameters. It covers the meaning of "text" only implicitly, and never mentions delay_ms, its default of 12, or the unit (milliseconds) and whether it is inter-keystroke or total delay — a meaningful gap for a typing tool.

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?

"Type text as keyboard input" gives a concrete verb (type) and resource (keyboard input), and names the underlying mechanisms (xdotool/wtype). It reads as clearly distinct from file-writing siblings like write_file_text or clipboard tools. It stops short of stating scope or how it differs from other input-injection siblings such as click.

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?

"Focus the target window first if needed" implies a prerequisite and hints at the focus_window sibling without naming it. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over write_file_text or clipboard-based text transfer, so the agent must infer the choice.

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