cocos_type_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains key behavioral traits: the text is emitted one character at a time via the keyboard API, and IME/input-event handlers fire per character. This clarifies the tool's operational mechanics, though it lacks details on 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific use cases and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the core action and behavior well but lacks parameter explanations and details on return values or error conditions. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 for undocumented parameters. However, it only mentions the 'text' parameter implicitly and does not explain the purpose of 'url', 'wait_ms', 'viewport_width', 'viewport_height', or 'timeout_ms'. This leaves most parameters unexplained, failing to add meaningful semantics 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 specific action ('Type a string') and target ('whatever widget currently has focus'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on adding components or managing scenes. It provides concrete examples of use cases (name-entry fields, high-score initials, chat boxes), making the purpose immediately understandable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Ideal for filling name-entry fields, high-score initials, chat boxes'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as those for clicking or dragging.

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