adb_type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the focus dependency. It says nothing about whether existing text is cleared or appended, how newlines/special or non-ASCII characters are handled, what happens when nothing is focused, or what the call returns.

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?

A single short sentence with the key precondition front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail.

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 mutation-style input tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one undescribed parameter, the description should explain focus prerequisite handling and input formatting. It leaves an agent guessing about error behavior when no field is focused.

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 50%: 'device' is documented in the schema, while 'text' is explained only implicitly by the description's 'type text'. The obviousness of the text parameter keeps this adequate, but format details (multiline, escaping) are absent from both sources.

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 (type) and target (the currently focused field), which is precise enough to separate it from a key-event tool like adb_key or a raw adb_shell. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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 phrase 'field that currently has focus' implicitly tells the agent a field must be focused first (presumably via adb_tap), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as adb_key for non-text input.

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