type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that this uses `adb input text` and cannot type emoji or non-Latin characters, but it does not mention whether text is appended or replaces existing content, how special characters are handled, or what happens when no field is focused.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with the action first and the essential limitation appended. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description conveys the target, the prerequisite that an input field is focused, and the main input limitation. It does not cover error behavior or special-character handling, but the core usage is clear enough for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is only 50% because the `text` parameter lacks a schema description. The description compensates by adding the critical ASCII-only constraint for `text`. The `serial` parameter is already adequately described in the schema.

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 action ('Type text'), a clear target ('currently focused input field'), and a key constraint (ASCII only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tap or key_event, which handle input differently.

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?

It implies the field must already be focused and signals the ASCII-only limitation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explain when to prefer this over key_event or other input methods.

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