Type text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions text input and submit action, but does not cover error handling, what happens with conflicting parameters, or any side effects. The behavioral transparency is limited.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main action and parameter priority. However, it does not explain the required session_id parameter, behavior when both ref and selector are provided, or return value, leaving some gaps.

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 only 20% (only submit has a description). The description adds value by explaining the preference between ref and selector, and the submit behavior. However, session_id and text parameters are not elaborated, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 'Type text into an input', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like aethyn_click by mentioning input behavior and preference for ref or selector.

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?

The description advises preferring a 'ref' from aethyn_snapshot or a 'selector', and setting submit:true to press Enter. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear for common use cases.

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