imgui_type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The parenthetical transparently reveals that focusing happens automatically before typing, and that characters are injected. However, it doesn't disclose whether text replaces or appends to existing content, whether special characters are supported, timing/delay behavior, or what happens if the widget isn't focusable.

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 efficient sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and it's concise without sacrificing the key behavioral note about focusing. Ideal length for this tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 3 required params and no output schema, making it moderately simple. The description covers the mechanical behavior (focus, inject) but leaves open questions about edge cases: what happens if the widget isn't focusable, does typing append or replace, and how this differs from imgui_press_key for single-key input. For a text-injection tool, these behavioral gaps are notable but not severe.

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 100%, so all three parameters (window, id, text) already have basic descriptions. The description adds context that 'text' is 'typed' (injected as characters) and that 'id' identifies the target widget, which is marginal added value beyond the schema. The description doesn't clarify the relationship between window and id (whether they're hierarchical or independent).

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 into a widget'—with a parenthetical clarifying the two-step behavior (focuses first, then injects characters). It clearly identifies the resource (widget) and the operation (typing text). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like imgui_press_key or imgui_click_widget, though the parenthetical does differentiate it from a plain injection.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The parenthetical implies it handles the focus step automatically, which hints at usage context. But it doesn't contrast with alternatives like imgui_press_key (single key vs text) or note any prerequisites like the widget needing to be a text-input type.

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