keyboard_type

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to perform a write/input action but not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it uses xdotool and types into the currently focused window, implying low-level OS input simulation. It also clarifies the delay_ms parameter as inter-character delay, which is behavioral context not in the schema. However, it doesn't mention side effects like active window focus requirement or potential send failures.

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 short and front-loaded with the main verb phrase. It includes an Args/Returns structure that is somewhat mechanical and redundant with the schema. The sentence 'Returns: str: Megerosites.' is thin and doesn't explain what the confirmation contains, but it is concise and not bloated.

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 1 required parameter, no output schema details, and no nested objects, so complexity is moderate. The description covers the core action and names the parameters, but with 0% schema coverage and a vague return description, an agent might not know how to properly use delay_ms or interpret the confirmation string. There is also no guidance on keyboard focus prerequisites. This is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, meaning neither parameter (text, delay_ms) is described in the schema. The description only mentions 'text, delay_ms' as a list, without explaining that text is the string to type or that delay_ms is the delay between characters. This is a significant gap because the description adds almost no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 and resource: typing text into the currently focused window via xdotool. It distinguishes itself clearly from siblings like keyboard_press (which sends individual key presses) by emphasizing 'Szoveg begepelese' (typing text) into the focused window. However, it lacks an explicit contrast with the sibling keyboard_press, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage: type text into the focused window. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus keyboard_press or other input tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like focusing a window first. The context is clear enough for basic use but lacks explicit alternative selection guidance.

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