Type text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the two backend paths (XTest for X11/Xwayland, wtype for Wayland) and a concrete failure mode (keymap uploads garbling XTest text). It stops short of stating timing, Unicode/character support, or what happens when no window has focus.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then mechanism selection, then the hazard warning. Front-loaded and zero filler.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers targeting, backend selection, and a critical cross-session pitfall. Missing only error/edge behavior (no focused window, unsupported characters), which is minor at this complexity.

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 67%: `id` and `window_id` are documented in the schema, and the phrase "focused (or given) window" usefully reinforces that targeting is optional. The required `text` parameter has no schema description and gets no clarification here (format, newline handling, size limits), leaving a small gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Types text into the focused (or given) window"), which is enough to separate it from the keyboard-shortcut sibling `key`. It does not explicitly name `key` as the alternative for non-text input, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this to enter text, targeting the focused window by default or a specific one. The one explicit rule — "Do not mix the two paths in one session" — is a constraint, not a when-to-use guide, and the description never says when to prefer `key` or `focus` instead.

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