type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the workflow (find field, focus, then type), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: whether this simulates actual keyboard input or just sets text value, error conditions, performance characteristics, or what happens if the text field isn't found. The description provides some context but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: one sentence defines the tool's purpose and scope, the next provides clear usage instructions. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space. It's front-loaded with the core functionality followed by practical guidance.

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?

Given the complexity of a UI automation tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It provides basic usage workflow but lacks critical information about parameter meanings, error handling, behavioral details, and expected outcomes. For a tool that interacts with simulators and UI elements, more context is needed for reliable agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'text' parameter implicitly but doesn't explain either parameter's purpose or constraints. It doesn't clarify what 'simulatorUuid' is or why it's required, nor does it provide guidance on the 'text' parameter beyond the vague 'supports US keyboard characters' statement. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the bare 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') and specifies the scope ('supports US keyboard characters'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'key_press' or 'key_sequence' that might also involve keyboard input, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific typing method.

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 description provides clear context about when to use this tool: 'Use describe_ui to find text field, tap to focus, then type.' This gives a practical workflow sequence. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, so it's not a complete usage guide.

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