tv_type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key behavioral trait that input goes to the currently focused field, but says nothing about failure when no field is focused, whether existing text is replaced or appended, or any connection requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the action, its target, and an example with zero wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the core purpose is covered. However, with no annotations and no guidance on establishing focus or handling a missing focused field, the definition is only minimally complete for a TV-control input action.

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%, but there is a single, intuitively named "text" parameter. The description clarifies that this text is routed to the focused field, adding destination context beyond the bare schema, though it gives no format constraints (likely because none exist for free-form text).

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?

States a specific verb ("Type text") and resource (the focused field on the TV), with a concrete example ("Stremio's search box"). An agent can distinguish this text-input action from siblings like tv_control or tv_screenshot, though it doesn't explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by "whatever field is focused," which hints that a field must be focused first, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative (e.g., how to focus a field via tv_control) is given. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer prerequisites.

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