computer_type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does mention that text goes to the current caret of the focused app, which is useful, but it omits details like whether existing text is replaced, how special characters or newlines are handled, or whether focus is required.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into Args and Returns sections. It wastes little space, though it could include more behavioral context without becoming bloated.

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?

The description gives enough information to invoke the tool: both parameters are named and partially explained, and the output schema covers the return value. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings and does not mention important behavioral constraints, leaving it only minimally 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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does explain serialno as coming from list_devices, which is valuable, but the description of text ('The text to type') mostly restates the parameter name. Overall it partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 action: type text at the current caret of the focused app. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like mobile_input_text or computer_bash.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mobile_input_text for mobile devices or computer_bash for shell input. The description implies usage context through 'focused app' but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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