type_text

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that without an app the tool types into the frontmost app, and with an app it focuses first. This explains the behavioral trait of app focusing. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a typing tool the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: definition, conditional behavior, and best practice. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 (one required param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how the optional parameter works, and a guideline for combination with siblings. There are no gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with both params described, and the description adds value by explaining the 'app' parameter's purpose (focusing the app to avoid wrong keystrokes) and behavior without it (types into frontmost). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 it types text via keyboard input. It distinguishes itself from siblings like click_at or press_key by specifying 'keyboard input' and app focusing behavior. The verb 'type' and resource 'text' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use the app parameter (recommended to avoid wrong app) and explicitly advises preferring batch_actions when combining with other actions. However, it does not differentiate from press_key for keyboard shortcuts or mention when not to use type_text.

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