Type text

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

The description directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation. Typing text into a field is a mutating action, not a read-only operation. This is a clear annotation contradiction, warranting the lowest score per the rules.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence presents the core action and target, while the second adds operational detail and a limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 simple tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the target, the keyboard-wait behavior, optional flags, and the ASCII limitation. It does not address edge cases like missing focus, but given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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%, with each parameter (text, clear, serial, submit) already described. The description only reiterates 'clear' and 'submit' in prose and restates the ASCII limitation already present in the schema. It adds no new semantic information beyond the structured data.

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 verb ('Type'), the target ('the focused field'), and the input type ('ASCII text'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like tap and key_press by specifying it types a full text string into the currently focused UI element. The additional detail about waiting for the soft keyboard further clarifies its specific role.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'safe to call right after tapping a field' due to waiting for the soft keyboard. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but this contextual guidance is sufficient for a basic understanding of its usage.

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