humanize_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently describes the delay distribution and the human-rhythm intent, which is the core behavior. But it does not clarify how the tool selects the target element (active element vs selector vs ref), whether it clears existing content, or any side effects, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and timing behavior appear in the first sentence, and the human-rhythm intent in the second. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves important invocation context unexplained — notably how the target element is resolved and whether the delay parameters are configurable beyond the stated default. An agent could call it, but it could also misuse it by assuming the active element is always targeted.

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 only 25% — only 'text' is explained. The description adds that delays are Gaussian with mean ~80ms, which aligns with the 'mean_delay_ms' default, but it does not explain the 'ref', 'selector', or the adjustable nature of 'mean_ddelay_ms'. It only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Type'), a resource ('text'), and a differentiating behavioral detail (Gaussian-delayed keystrokes). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'type_text' tool, so it misses the top level of sibling differentiation.

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 human-like typing, which suggests when to use it over alternatives like 'type_text' or 'paste_text'. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool instead of those siblings, nor any exclusion criteria.

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