smart_type_text

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: taps, waits for keyboard, types character by character (拟人逐字), handles TikTok AWESearchBar quirks, and defaults for retryOnFail and resnapshot. It does not disclose side effects or full error handling but covers the main behavior.

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 poorly structured, starting with jargon ('PREFERRED typing: tap real input → wait typable FR → 拟人逐字') and mixing multiple ideas without clear organization. It is not front-loaded and could be more concise.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, failure behavior, and full parameter details. It does not compensate for the missing output schema, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 63%. The description adds meaning for ref/x/y (specifying input location) and clarifies defaults for retryOnFail and resnapshot. However, parameters like perCharDelayMs and waitKeyboardMs are not explained beyond the schema, leaving gaps.

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 it is a typing tool for real input fields, distinguishing it from siblings by specifying it rejects chrome/chips and prefers wide search bars. The verb 'type' and resource 'real input' are explicit.

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 on when to use this tool (preferred typing, tap real input) and what to avoid (chrome/chips, hot-search chips). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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