type_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses default keypress timings, uppercase transformation behavior, error raising (`UnsupportedCharError`), and the return value structure (`{"ok": true, "chars": N}`). This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then covers timings, special characters, case behavior, error handling, and return format. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema and the description covers input semantics, error conditions, and return shape. It correctly references the sibling alternative and prerequisites (e.g., `set_caps_lock`). For a simulation keyboard input tool, this description is 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 thoroughly explains the `text` parameter: ASCII string, newline submission, and case transformation. The `session_id` parameter is not explicitly described, but its meaning is self-evident from the name and sibling tools. Overall, meaningful value is added beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Type an ASCII string into the BBC keyboard.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `type_input_raw` by mentioning case preservation differences.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus `type_input_raw`: use `type_input_raw` after disabling caps lock when case must be preserved. It also explains how to submit lines with `\n`, giving clear operational context.

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