env_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious traits: keystrokes go wherever focus is, effects appear a moment after return, and the environment must be running. This is meaningful transparency, though it stops short of describing failure modes or how special characters are handled.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the action, focus caveat, screenshot prerequisite, golden-image routing, running requirement, and delayed effect are all packed concisely with no filler or 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 an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description covers the key operational context: preconditions, focus behavior, timing, and environment vs golden-image routing. The main omission is explicit guidance on when env_type is preferable to env_keys, but this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, text, and press_enter. The description reinforces the 'as if at a keyboard' framing but adds little per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a specific action ('Type text into the environment's keyboard') and resource (the environment), and clarifies that keystrokes go to the guest's current focus. It differentiates from click/scroll tools and from golden-image usage by directing to env_fork, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling env_keys, which may overlap in purpose.

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 gives clear usage context: check env_screenshot first, only use on running environments, and for golden images fork first. It also specifies the environment must be running. However, it does not state when to use env_type versus closely related alternatives like env_keys or env_exec, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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