glass_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fully delivers. It discloses that keystrokes are sent individually (not pasted), that per-key handlers run, that a newline does not press Return, that it cannot report what it hit, and details the behavior of the `return` options.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, prerequisite, behavioral mode, limitation, alternative, and observe options. It is front-loaded with the core action, and the length is justified by the nuanced behavior.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is comprehensive. It covers what the tool does, what it cannot do, when to use an alternative, and how the optional observe parameter behaves. No critical operational detail appears missing.

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 already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial edge-case that a newline in `text` does not press Return and should be sent via glass_key, which goes beyond the schema. It also reinforces the focus prerequisite.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Type a string of text into the focused window.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like glass_set_value and glass_key, and the scope is explicit (focused window).

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?

Explicit guidance is given: click a field first (glass_click_element or glass_click) because the tool does not focus anything. It also says to prefer glass_set_value for a11y-exposed fields, directly naming the alternative and explaining why. The note about sending a newline as a separate glass_key is a clear usage instruction.

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