type_text

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behaviors like whether it simulates keystrokes, handles special characters, or works only on certain widgets. It omits these details, leaving the agent to assume basic text insertion.

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 concise with one sentence, but it lacks structure such as parameter listing or usage hints. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but could be more informative.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic action but does not address scenarios like missing focus or handling of newlines. It is adequate but leaves potential questions unanswered.

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?

The parameter 'text' is self-explanatory from its name, but the description only repeats 'literal text' without adding format constraints or examples. Given zero schema coverage, the description provides minimal added value beyond the parameter name.

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 literal text') and the target ('focused widget'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it could elaborate on what constitutes a 'widget' (e.g., any UI input field) to improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'press_key' or 'click'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., widget must be focused) or cases where other tools are more appropriate.

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