adb_input_text

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

Without annotations, the description discloses special character handling (converting spaces to %s, escaping shell metacharacters). However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device unlocked) or side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences that deliver essential information without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key behavioral nuance (special characters). It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining how the 'text' parameter is processed (special character handling). The 'device' parameter is adequately described in the schema.

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 text on the device') and specifies handling of special characters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_input (gestures) and adb_clipboard (multi-line text).

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?

Provides a clear when-not-to-use: 'For multi-line or complex text, consider using the clipboard tool instead.' This gives an alternative, though it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other input sibling tools.

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