type_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a field must be focused first and that submit triggers Enter, but says nothing about whether existing text is replaced or appended, what happens if no field is focused, or what the call returns.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its precondition, with zero filler wording.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential call mechanics: focus precondition and Enter behavior. It is slightly incomplete on failure modes and text-replacement semantics, but sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 compensate for both parameters. It fully explains the optional 'submit' flag's behavior and implicitly defines 'text' as the string typed into the focused field, leaving little ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and target ('Type text into the focused field'), which is far more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like press_key or adb_shell, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'tap the field first' gives a concrete precondition an agent must satisfy before calling, and 'submit=True presses Enter afterwards' describes the follow-on action. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., using adb_shell for bulk input), so it stops short of a 5.

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