human_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses typing behavior, delay modeling, and optional focusing. It provides a benchmark (220 wpm). However, it does not mention error handling or side effects.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main functionality. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's complexity (delays, optional focus), the description covers key aspects. It is missing prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded) and failure handling, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'text' and 'wpm' implicitly and adds context for 'selector' (focus via click). However, it lacks explicit definitions and does not cover all parameters comprehensively.

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 types text with per-keystroke delays based on WPM. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'type_text' (which likely lacks delays) and 'human_click' (click only). The mention of optional focus via selector 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?

The description implies usage for human-like typing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'type_text' for fast typing). It provides no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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