Type text into focused field

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: text is typed via adb, spaces escaped, NUL and newlines rejected, and requires a focused field. Annotations provide mutation/side-effect info, and description complements well.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences pack the core action, underlying mechanism, and key constraints. No unnecessary words.

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?

Adequate for a simple input tool with full schema coverage and annotations. However, it lacks mention of what happens if no field is focused or the device state required. Missing return value info (though likely none). Could be slightly more 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the adb escaping mechanism for spaces and the character rejection rules, which aids agent understanding of how text is processed.

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 function: types text into the currently focused field using adb shell input text. It differentiates from sibling tools like devilge_input_key (for special keys) and devilge_set_text (which may imply setting text directly), by focusing on the focused field and mentioning character limitations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The schema note about using input_key for newlines is present, but the description itself does not provide usage context or exclusions. Agent must infer from name and siblings.

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