type_text

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

The description discloses the space-formatting behavior for compatibility with the adb shell, which adds value beyond the minimal schema. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like special character handling or failure modes when no field is focused; with no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 two-parameter tool with fully described schemas, the description adequately covers purpose and key behavior. It could be more complete by noting the requirement of a focused field or the scope of text formatting, but overall it is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% for both text and serial parameters. The tool description does not add semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Type text') targeting a specific resource ('the currently focused input field'), which distinguishes it from sibling input-related tools like tap_screen or send_keyevent. The scope is precise and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_keyevent or execute_shell_command. The description implies a focused field but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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