type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool simulates keyboard input and details special characters ( , , ). This adds context beyond a bare statement, though potential side effects like triggering events are not mentioned.

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 with two paragraphs: a clear action statement and a bulleted list for special characters. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites (focus), input format (special chars), and expected behavior. It does not explicitly describe error handling for unfocused elements, but overall is adequate.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description names the parameter 'text' and explains it supports special characters like , , , which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not describe format constraints.

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 currently focused element. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'press_key' (single key) and 'set_value' (direct value setting) by specifying it simulates keyboard input with special character support.

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 instructs users to focus a text field first using click() or focus(), providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies when not to use (without focus) but does not list all alternative tools.

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