input_text

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

The description offers minimal behavioral information. It does not disclose what happens on invalid coordinates, whether text appends or replaces, or if any special characters are supported. Without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 but lacks a proper structure. It reads like a code docstring rather than a formal tool description. It could be better formatted with clear sections.

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 has an output schema (not shown), return values are not required in the description. However, the description omits essential behavioral context, such as error handling or interaction with the UI, leaving gaps for a simple but functional tool.

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, so the description's parameter explanations add value. The center parameter includes an example format, and text is described briefly. However, more detail on text restrictions would improve clarity.

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 that the tool inputs text at a given coordinate, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like click or long_click. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when text input is needed versus clicking a field. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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