gui_type_text

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating that it types literal text. There is no mention of what happens if the window is not focused, how special characters are handled, or other behavioral details.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description lacks crucial context such as prerequisites (focus), error conditions, side effects, and what constitutes 'literal text.' It is not complete enough for reliable use.

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 only parameter 'text' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not elaborate on its semantics, such as encoding, length limits, or handling of newlines. The description merely implies the text is typed literally.

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 tool types literal text into a focused window, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gui_send_keys, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 mentions that typing occurs into the 'focused window,' implying a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gui_send_keys) or when not to use it.

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