Type text

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: input is delivered via the Amiga keymap to whatever window currently has focus, so focus state determines the outcome. It does not say what happens with untypable characters or repeated invocation effects, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then prerequisite, then alternatives. Every clause carries routing or behavioral information; no filler.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive input tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite state, and sibling routing adequately. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (no focused window, unsupported characters) but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so 'text' and 'enter' are already documented; the description adds only indirect meaning by implying the text must be expressible in the Amiga keymap. It never mentions the 'enter' option or any formatting/length constraints, so it stays at the baseline for a fully covered 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?

States a specific verb and target ('Type text into the active window') plus the mechanism ('through the Amiga's own keymap, as if typed on its keyboard'), which immediately separates it from raw key events and field-setting siblings.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite ('Make the right window active first via amiga_ui_click or amiga_mouse') and names two alternatives with their selecting conditions: amiga_key_press for special keys/shortcuts and amiga_ui_set for named text fields. Nothing is left to inference.

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