Input text

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. It does not disclose whether the text replaces or appends existing content, what happens if no field is focused, or any side effects. With openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description should provide more clarity but remains minimal.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core action, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 is too sparse for a tool with two parameters and no output schema. It lacks information about how to prepare the field, the meaning of 'serial', and possible error conditions. Sibling tools like tapElement suggest a workflow, but the description alone does not provide enough context for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for documenting parameters, but it does not. It fails to explain the 'serial' parameter and only vaguely suggests 'text' is the content to type. No additional meaning is added beyond what the tool name implies.

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 tool types text into the focused input field, identifying the specific action and resource. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like tap and keyEvent by specifying text input, but does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites such as focusing the input field first (e.g., via tap), nor does it explain when keyEvent would be more appropriate for non-text input.

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