keyboard_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that text is typed literally and special characters are escaped, which is a key behavioral nuance. However, it does not mention focus requirements or potential failure modes. For a simple typing tool, this is above-average disclosure.

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 extremely concise, with a single introductory sentence followed by a short parameter section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no fluff or repetition beyond the necessary parameter list.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema present. The description explains the main behavior and the literal-escaping nuance. While it doesn't cover every edge case (e.g., whether focus is required), for a straightforward type-text tool it is sufficiently complete. The presence of an output schema means return values are not required in the description.

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 schema provides only a string type with no description. The description adds a parameter section stating 'text: The text to type,' which is minimal. However, the main body clarifies that the text is interpreted literally and special characters are escaped, which adds meaning beyond the schema. This compensates partially for the low schema coverage.

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+resource: 'Type a string of text as keyboard input.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like keyboard_key by focusing on text strings, while also noting literal handling of special characters. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context is clear: this tool is for typing arbitrary text as keyboard input. It implies use cases where literal text is needed, but it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of keyboard_key for shortcuts' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions are stated, so it's a solid 4 but not a 5.

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