type_input_raw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses critical behavioral traits: the caps lock dependency, cold-boot default, and the consequence of case mismatches (wrong letter, no silent fallback). This goes beyond simple repetition of the tool name.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second covers a critical prerequisite. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 description sufficiently covers the main caveat and required setup for simple input tool. It does not mention return values, but an output schema exists, so that omission is acceptable. It could benefit from explaining session_id's role more fully.

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%, and the description only partially compensates: it clarifies that 'text' must be an ASCII string, but 'session_id' is only implicitly referenced in the example call to set_caps_lock, leaving its purpose and format unclear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('ASCII string, preserving case'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like type_input. The case-preservation detail adds specificity.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite (CAPS LOCK OFF) and how to ensure it via set_caps_lock, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative input tools or mention when not to use it.

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