pikvm_type

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses that this is a mutating action and requires confirmation. It still leaves key behavioral details unstated, such as target server selection, keymap behavior, slow typing, failure behavior, and permission requirements.

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 and front-loads the main action and side effect. It is efficient, though the phrase 'Give one of them' is slightly informal and the breakdown omits several parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the core interaction and confirmation requirement but is not complete enough regarding server, keymap, and slow typing.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains text, shortcut with an example, mutual exclusivity via 'Give one of them,' and confirm, but it leaves slow, keymap, and server undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Type on the target machine like a USB keyboard.' This clearly distinguishes keyboard input from other KVM operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as pikvm_ssh or pikvm_call.

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?

It states that the caller should give either text or shortcut and that confirm=true is required because the action changes machine behavior. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of related alternatives like pikvm_ssh or pikvm_call.

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