type_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the newline-as-Enter behavior and the focus requirement, but it does not mention the effect of the 'screenshot' parameter (e.g., whether a screenshot is taken after typing) or what happens if no element is focused. It adds some value but leaves key behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then a concise usage/behavior note. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no redundancy, and the critical 'click first' instruction is immediately actionable.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action, the focus requirement, and the newline behavior. However, the screenshot parameter's purpose is left completely unexplained, which is a notable omission given it is optional and defaults to true. The description is adequate for basic use but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly implies that 'text' is the string to type, but it provides zero explanation of the 'screenshot' parameter, which is optional and defaults to true. This is a significant gap because the screenshot behavior is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent uncertain about its purpose or when to disable it.

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 states a specific verb ('type') and resource ('text into whatever currently has keyboard focus'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like click, key, and move. The focus qualifier adds precision, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Click the target field first') and defines how newlines are handled, which informs when to use this tool (for text input into focused fields). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus-based instruction implies a compare-and-contrast with click or key tools.

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