type_text

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description meaningfully discloses behavioral details: it chooses 'input text' for ASCII and clipboard+paste on Android 10+ for unicode, and notes the reliability rationale. This goes well beyond the schema, although it leaves some behavior, such as what happens when no input field is focused, undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful technical behavior. A small amount of formatting could be tightened, but every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 description covers the main usage and the automatic method selection, which is good for this type of text-entry tool. It is incomplete because it omits the serial parameter semantics and does not clarify how type_text relates to the sibling type_into; the output schema means return values do not need to be restated.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only explains the overall purpose rather than the individual parameters. The text parameter is self-evident from context, but the serial parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving an important gap for an agent deciding whether serial is needed.

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 the tool types text into the actively focused input field and even explains the method-selection behavior. It distinguishes itself from paste_clipboard by saying manual clipboard calls are unnecessary, but it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling type_into, so it is not fully distinctive.

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 gives clear context: it is for typing text into a focused field, and it tells the agent it does not need to separately invoke paste_clipboard or perform a long press for unicode text. However, it does not explicitly state when to use type_text instead of type_into or other text-entry siblings, so exclusions are missing.

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