da_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 useful behaviors: empty string is a no-op, and the optional per-char delay. However, it does not mention whether typing is fast by default, whether it waits for focus to be settled, whether it fails if no focus exists, or how it handles special characters/keystrokes embedded in the string.

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 with zero waste. Every element earns its place: the core action, the no-op edge case, and the delay parameter. Highly front-loaded and efficient.

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 relatively simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, a bit more would help—for instance, whether the tool returns a success/error status, what happens when there's no active focus, and the default delay. These gaps are notable but not critical for a straightforward typing tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'text' implicitly (the string to type) and 'perCharDelayMs' explicitly ('Optional per-char delay (ms)'). It also adds the no-op behavior for empty text. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state that perCharDelayMs defaults to some value when omitted, though 'optional' implies a default.

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') with a specific resource ('a string at the current keyboard focus'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling da_key (which presumably presses individual keys) by specifying it types a string at the current focus, not at a coordinate or element.

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 the tool requires a pre-existing keyboard focus ('at the current keyboard focus') rather than establishing one, giving some implicit context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over da_key (for keystrokes/modifiers) or da_click (for focus establishment), nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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