pilot_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: character-by-character typing, return value (character count and whether Enter pressed), and error conditions (no focused element, timeout). This is comprehensive for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by usage guidance, then parameter list, returns, and errors. Every sentence adds value, and the entire description is succinct.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, return values, and errors. It provides sufficient information for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description minimally adds context: 'text' as 'the text string to type' and 'submit' as 'set to true to press Enter', but these are nearly identical to the schema descriptions ('Text to type' and 'Press Enter after typing').

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 character-by-character into the focused element, simulating real keyboard input. It distinguishes itself from sibling pilot_fill by noting the appropriate use cases (contenteditable, rich text editors, keystroke-reactive fields) versus standard inputs.

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 explicitly provides when to use (contenteditable, rich text, fields reacting to keystrokes) and when not to use (prefer pilot_fill for standard inputs). It also gives a prerequisite hint (use pilot_click first if no focus) and explains the submit parameter usage.

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